PRIVATE BUSINESS

Whitehaven Harbour Bill  [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Defence Spending

Anne Begg: How much was spent in Scotland by the Ministry of Defence in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: Around £1.4 billion of the defence budget has been spent directly in Scotland in each of the past three years. That reflects the vital contribution that Scotland makes to defence, both in terms of the brave men and women who join our armed forces and the high-quality Scottish companies that provide the sophisticated equipment used on the modern battlefield.

Anne Begg: Has my right hon. Friend had time to work out how much of that spending might be blocked by a political party that may be in government in Scotland and that has policies that are likely to prevent some of that vital work from being done in Scotland —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that I may have to keep a tight rein on proceedings today. As it is the hon. Lady, I will allow the question.

Douglas Alexander: As ever, I will endeavour to keep my answer brief and factual. As at 1 April 2006, there were 13,520 regular forces serving in Scotland. The Ministry of Defence employs some 20,000 people in Scotland, including approximately 13,500 regular members of the armed services and 6,100 civilians, not including contractor personnel.

Julian Lewis: Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the effect on all that military investment in Scotland if the party that came first in the elections succeeds in persuading the party that came last to overcome the vestiges of its principles and join a coalition targeted, as usual, against the military?

Douglas Alexander: As he watched the Scottish elections from afar, I fear that the hon. Gentleman may not fully have appreciated the fact that two thirds of the Scottish electorate voted against separatism. Indeed, both the principal parties—my own and the Scottish National party—secured between 32 and 33 per cent. of the vote. Therefore, some of the more cataclysmic headlines that have been written in recent days do not reflect the overwhelming consensus still in Scotland that we are proud to remain part of the United Kingdom.

John McFall: May I inform the Secretary of State that for the past 40 years defence has been an integral part of the economy of my area? In the past three years, more than £300 million has been put into the local economy each year. With direct and indirect jobs at the Clyde naval base, we have more than 10,000 jobs. While words may come easy to some people, we cannot play fast and loose with people's jobs. Defence is an important part of our area and may it continue to be so.

Douglas Alexander: Her Majesty's naval base on the Clyde, which incorporates the Faslane base, is one of the main naval bases in the United Kingdom and the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Scotland. I am sure that it will continue to have a strong future based on the Clyde and serving the defence interests not only of Scotland, but of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Angus Robertson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are less service jobs in Scotland, less bases in Scotland, less shipbuilding jobs in Scotland—[Hon. Members: "Fewer."]—and fewer Scottish regiments than when Labour came to power?

Douglas Alexander: Obviously our forces have to reflect the nature of the challenges that the country faces at any point. I am not convinced that the alternatives that were offered in recent weeks in Scotland would produce a better future for Scottish regiments or—certainly—for Scottish shipbuilding.

Ian Davidson: How many jobs does the Secretary of State believe would be created in Scotland by the construction of two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, and how many aircraft carriers would be needed by an independent Scotland?

Douglas Alexander: I shall not indulge in answering the second, hypothetical question because, as I have said, Scottish voters once again overwhelmingly rejected independence only last week. On the first question, it is the case that significant opportunities in shipbuilding and refitting will arise not only from the potential orders for the Royal Navy aircraft carriers but from the pre-existing programme of work, which has brought new life to the Yarrow yard and will do the same for the Rosyth base in the east of Scotland.

David Mundell: Given that defence is just one of the issues on which the new Scottish Executive will have to work with the UK Government, does the Secretary of State regret his complacency in not putting in place proper mechanisms for interaction between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government? Perhaps he can tell us now just what will happen when the prospective First Minister and his Lib Dem allies, in or out of coalition, seek to thwart the upgrade of Trident.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman's question shows the risks involved in preparing a question ahead of events. He has repeated it many times in the past, I will give him that much, but it would be unwise of me to prejudge the appropriate conversations taking place between all the parties that failed to secure a majority in last week's Scottish elections.

David Mundell: It is clear from that answer that no proper mechanisms are in place to enable the Scottish Executive to work with the UK Government when those bodies are led by parties of different persuasions. The Government have had eight years to put such a mechanism in place, and the fact that they have failed to do so is a reflection on them. Will the Secretary of State clarify what will be his Government's relationship with the prospective new First Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about defence. I think that we must move on.

Climate Change Bill

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement on the application of the draft climate change Bill to Scotland.

David Cairns: The draft climate change Bill is out for consultation on a UK-wide basis. It has not yet been determined how the functions of the Bill would be performed. The UK Government and all the devolved Administrations are committed to working in partnership to combat climate change.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is patently obvious that the only legislation likely to get through the Scottish Parliament in the current circumstances is that which has broad political support. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that it would make sense for the UK Government and the Scottish Executive and Parliament to work together to ensure that a Scottish climate change Bill is brought forward that complements the UK Bill which, as he has noted, has now reached an advanced state of consultation?

David Cairns: Clearly, various devolved responsibilities are involved in promoting renewables and in the work across a range of sectors to promote climate change measures. It is self-evident that global warming can be tackled only by nations working together, irrespective of national or international borders. It is therefore incumbent on all nations to do everything that they can to tackle climate change. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done, especially with his private Member's Bill, to raise awareness of these matters, in this House and throughout Scotland.

Michael Weir: Does the Minister accept that the current scientific consensus is that we need a reduction in emissions of 80 per cent. rather than 60 per cent. to prevent climate change raising temperatures by 2°? The new Administration are likely to have a higher target than the UK, so how will that fit into the proposed UK Bill?

David Cairns: The previous Scottish Administration set separate targets, so it is entirely up to the new Administration, whatever their hue, to set their own target. However, a target set at a high level will not be achieved if the party in power opposes every application for a wind farm that is submitted. It is easy for the Scottish National party to demand higher targets here, but the truth is that it opposes every application for a wind farm to help promote renewable energy.

Act of Union

David Evennett: What events (a) have taken place and (b) are planned in Scotland to mark the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union.

Douglas Alexander: A number of events have taken place and are planned to mark this very significant anniversary.

David Evennett: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that there are ongoing benefits arising from the continuation of the Union between Scotland and the UK? Is it not our duty in this House and across the country to ensure that those benefits are promoted in a very positive way?

Douglas Alexander: Unusually, I find myself in complete accord with the hon. Gentleman. An interesting fact worth noting is that, as the argument has been discussed north of the border in recent months, support there for separation and for ending the Union of 300 years has fallen consistently. I take great heart from the fact that the overwhelming number of voters in Scotland rejected the parties that wanted Scotland to separate from the UK. They did so for the very basic reason that, in the 21st century, the two countries are stronger together and would be weaker apart.

Tom Watson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people in Scotland, Wales, England and—probably—Northern Ireland believe that the best way to celebrate the Act of Union would be to abolish proportional representation elections?

Douglas Alexander: I was anticipating the West Lothian question today, but not the West Bromwich question. I know that my hon. Friend and his trade union have long held trenchant views on the merits of first past the post. It is for each individual Member of the House to reach a judgment, in light of recent elections, as to where he or she stands in that particular debate.

Pete Wishart: I was just wondering whether the Secretary of State thinks that all these celebrations are going well and to plan. Does he agree that some of the debate we have had about the Union has been brutal at times, overwhelmingly unhelpful and totally negative? Does he accept that the Scottish people have made their choice and that it is now incumbent on him, his Department and every Member of the House to ensure that the positive choice that the people of Scotland made on Thursday is accepted and respected?

Douglas Alexander: It is significant if the Scottish National party now accepts that the choice that the Scottish people made was overwhelmingly to reject separation, because there is nothing more negative in politics than seeking to blame Westminster or the English for Scotland's challenges. In that sense, I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we can all move on from a politics defined by difference; but that remains the policy of the Scottish National party—the ball is squarely in its court.

James McGovern: It is undeniable that over the past 300 years the Act of Union has had a positive effect not only on Scotland but on the rest of the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the First Minister of Scotland, whoever that may be, should be encouraged to make a speech on behalf of Scotland and not party, emphasising the benefits of the Act of Union?

Douglas Alexander: At this particular moment I would be cautious of offering advice during the 28 days set following the election last Thursday to whoever turns out to be First Minister of Scotland. I simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend; the benefits of the Union are overwhelming and I have been encouraged by the fact that, as that argument has been engaged in Scotland in recent months, support has moved in favour of the Union and against separation. I believe that that remains the settled will of the Scottish people, as the late great John Smith once described it.

Jo Swinson: Two days after the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union two thirds of people in Scotland voted for pro-Union parties. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the SNP has won the right to try to form a Government, it certainly has not won the right to take Scotland down the road to separation?

Douglas Alexander: Somewhat unusually again—I suppose this is a reflection of the new politics—I find myself in agreement with the Liberal Democrats, which is not something that every party in the House can claim today. Two thirds of Scottish voters have supported the Union and rejected separation, and for all the windy rhetoric of moral authority the fact remains that the Scottish National party secured less than a third of the votes in Scotland last Thursday. The only party with the moral authority to move a country towards independence would be a party that secured majority support and then majority support in a referendum, and I do not believe that the Scottish National party has the prospect of either.

David Mundell: Perhaps the Secretary of State will also agree with me that the vast majority of people who voted for the Scottish National party did so not in an attempt to break up the Union but as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Labour and Liberal Democrat-led Scottish Executive. Does he accept, too, that Labour's clunking fist approach to promoting, or rather brow-beating, Scots into supporting the Union failed and will he encourage the Chancellor and others to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in his positive promotion of the Union?

Douglas Alexander: I say this with the greatest of respect: I have never regarded the views of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), or indeed those of the hon. Gentleman, as my lodestar in terms either of defending the Union or winning popular votes in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman has advice to offer parties in Scotland, perhaps he should write another memo to his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament.

International Sporting Events

Greg Hands: What steps he has taken to secure future international sporting events for Scotland.

Douglas Alexander: I have recently secured the full support of the United Kingdom Government for Glasgow and Scotland's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games. The bid will be formally submitted tomorrow. Scotland's strategy for attracting, organising and delivering major events is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers.

Greg Hands: I, too, support the Glasgow bid for the Commonwealth games. Looking forward another four years, the Conservatives have been urging a joint England-Scotland bid to host the World cup. There are many merits in a joint bid—the excellent stadiums and the fantastic fans in Scotland—yet the main obstacle continues to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would have thought that in the current climate the Secretary of State and the Chancellor would be looking at means to strengthen the Union. The SNP is opposed to a joint bid for the World cup—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: I am not aware that the Scottish Football Association is giving that matter serious consideration at present. It is principally a responsibility for the SFA and the football authorities, so although I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not want to prejudice the continuation of the four home nations competing in international competitions.

David Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to bring the 2014 Commonwealth games to the city of Glasgow. Does he agree that the UEFA football cup final to be played in Glasgow this month will be an excellent showcase for the city, which should lead to many more football finals being played in that football-mad city, and that it will also be a major boost to the Commonwealth games bid that is being launched tomorrow?

Douglas Alexander: I am certainly happy to identify myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend. It is right to recognise the centrality of football to the city of Glasgow. Only on Saturday, it was a great privilege for me, as Secretary of State for Scotland, to accompany His Eminence the Cardinal of Scotland and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to Ibrox to see Rangers play Celtic in what I hope was an eloquent testimony to their shared determination to challenge sectarianism, which for too long has blighted football in that great city.

Malcolm Bruce: In supporting Glasgow's bid for the Commonwealth games, may I remind the Secretary of State that in the north-east of Scotland we have a crowd of very talented swimmers, including European record holders, who will hopefully participate in both the Commonwealth and the Olympic games? Will he support the bid to ensure that we have an Olympic swimming pool in the north of Scotland so that those swimmers get the training facilities on the ground that they deserve to help them win medals for both Scotland and Britain?

Douglas Alexander: If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me about his specific proposal, I will certainly ensure that his points are passed on to those who would make a decision on an Olympic-size swimming pool.

John Robertson: At a time when the Glasgow bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games is on its way to London, will my right hon. Friend make sure, as well as supporting the bid, that the 2012 Olympic games have the knock-on effect of ensuring that facilities in Scotland are second to none and that we are given the platform that we need for 2014?

Douglas Alexander: I remain convinced that there are huge opportunities for Glasgow, not simply in terms of the Commonwealth games bid, which I sincerely hope will be successful, but in its being another part of the United Kingdom to benefit from the 2012 Olympics. One of the key attributes of London's successful bid for the Olympics was a recognition not just of the magnificent diversity within that global city, but of the fact there were real opportunities for a legacy for every part of the United Kingdom. I know that that is certainly the intention of the Olympic authorities.

Drugs Classification

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet Ministers in the Scottish Executive to discuss the effect in Scotland of the legislation governing the classification of drugs.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss the effect in Scotland of classification of drugs. That policy matter is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the UK now has the second highest number of drug-related deaths in Europe? The problem is particularly acute in Scotland, where the death-rate average for the past five years is 624. Given that recent evidence from Scotland shows beyond any doubt that cannabis can cause brain damage and can lead to experimentation with harder drugs, has the time not come for it to be reclassified? What is his view on that and what recommendations will he make that might help to save Scottish youngsters from misery and drug affliction?

David Cairns: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that drug misuse is a terrible blight that affects all too many communities, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I commend him on the work that he has done in raising the issue. He will know, however, that the Government's position on the declassification of cannabis was informed by the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The position was reaffirmed in January 2006, after further advice from the council. It recommended that cannabis should remain a class C drug, but that an information campaign was needed to highlight the mental health dangers and clarify that cannabis remains illegal. The Home Secretary has accepted that recommendation and has acted on it.

Alistair Carmichael: Does not the confusion surrounding the classification of cannabis highlight the fact that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 needs a major overhaul? In this House we revisit road traffic legislation on average every 10 years, but we have had no major drugs legislation since 1971? Will the Minister impress on the Home Secretary the fact that the time has come to look at drugs misuse as a whole?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that, as I said, this matter is a policy responsibility of the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of making those representations strongly by himself. It is important that we clarify that cannabis still remains illegal and that in my view, the view of the Government and the view of more and more informed commentators, it is still a very dangerous substance indeed. The Government are clear that that is a message that we all have to get across.

Second Home Owners

Andrew Robathan: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on eligibility for voter registration for those with second homes in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects.

Andrew Robathan: Is the Minister aware that, as part of the electoral fiasco in Scotland last week, some people with second homes in Scotland who applied to register as voters were turned down? Given that all Ministers of the Crown are deemed to have their primary residence in London, will the Minister tell the House whether he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Scottish Ministers were able to register and vote in Scotland? If so, why are politicians treated better than ordinary people?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman knows that decisions on whether individuals are placed on the electoral register are a matter for individual registration officers. If he has a specific example that he wishes to put forward, I will be happy to receive his representations. On his first point, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement on the matter very soon.

Peter Atkinson: I was grateful for the answer that the Minister gave to a written question that I tabled about this subject on behalf of a constituent with a second home in Scotland who was refused registration. We then discovered that Scottish MPs with second homes in London were able to vote locally. There are irregularities in the way in which registration officers apply the rules across the country, because some will grant second home owners a vote, while others will not. Given that second home owners now pay virtually full council tax, will the Minister ensure that they will have the right to vote if they want to, bearing in the mind the phrase "no taxation without representation"?

David Cairns: It is clear that it is perfectly possible to be on the electoral registration roll in more than one location. We must not allow anyone to run away with the idea that that is a special privilege for MPs. For example, students can be registered on the electoral roll at a hall of residence and their home address. I simply do not know why individuals were turned down, because it was not my decision to turn anyone down. Such decisions are made by individual registration officers, who have clear guidelines to which they work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about a particular issue, I will take it up on his behalf, but this is clearly a matter for individual electoral registration officers.

Digital Switchover

Rosemary McKenna: When he last met Ofcom to discuss digital switchover; and if he will make a statement.

David Cairns: I last met the director of Ofcom Scotland, Vicki Nash, on 29 March and we discussed a wide range of issues.

Rosemary McKenna: When my hon. Friend meets Ofcom and, especially, Digital UK, will he express his concerns that some suppliers are still providing equipment that will be obsolete after switchover? Will he ensure that Digital UK does all that it can to discourage people from purchasing such equipment and that it gives good information and advice?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to her work on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, through which she has consistently raised such issues. She asks about one of the matters that I discussed with Vicki Nash a few weeks ago. It is important that people are aware not only that digital switchover is happening—it is happening sooner in the Border television region than elsewhere—but of the technical issues involved. People should not buy equipment that they do not need or something that is far more expensive than is needed, and nor should they be sold equipment that will become obsolete very quickly. We must work with manufacturers and retailers. The Department of Trade and Industry is involved in this and I continue to raise such concerns.

Robert Smith: Following those discussions about digital switchover, does the Minister have any progress to report on the development of handsets and controls for people with visual impairments and other disabilities, given that the programme guide is extremely difficult to control? Will the Government ensure that those with disabilities will have equal access to digital television when they are forced to use the new technology?

David Cairns: This is an extremely serious point. Given that digital services will be enhanced and the spectrum will be greatly increased, there will be an opportunity to tailor specific services for disabled people. It is absolutely vital that the technology allows such people to access programmes that are made on their behalf. We touched on the issue regarding handsets, albeit briefly, and I shall be happy to take up the matter on the hon. Gentleman's behalf because I entirely share his concerns.

Angus MacNeil: With regard to digital switchover, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that my constituents in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra will be guaranteed continuity of service at all times, particularly during elections such as the one that they really enjoyed last week?

David Cairns: I am being encouraged to say things by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, but I shall not put them on record. It is important to note that digital switchover means that about 98 to 100 per cent. of people will receive a new digital signal. It has never been the case that every single person would be able to receive a digital signal. I do not have the map in front of me, and I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman about every island that he mentioned. There are areas in my constituency that cannot get an analogue signal, never mind a digital signal. Everyone has been clear and consistent all the way along the line: about 98.5 per cent. of homes will be able to receive the new, improved digital services.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Efficient Homes

Lynne Jones: What minimum requirements her Department stipulates for the energy efficiency of new and refurbished homes.

Yvette Cooper: New standards for building regulations were introduced in April last year. They require a 40 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency, compared to 2002. However, we need to go further, and we are consulting on a timetable for significant increases in compulsory energy efficiency measures for new homes, so that all new homes can be zero carbon within 10 years.

Lynne Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to ratchet up energy efficiency standards, but may I ask her to address the second part of my question, which is about existing homes? In Birmingham, 35,000 homes in the private sector, and more than half of council homes, do not even meet the decent homes standard, which is a very low standard. What is she doing to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes, particularly those occupied by people on low incomes?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is certainly true that existing homes make up the vast majority of the stock. We already support grants and assistance for people, including through the energy efficiency commitment provided by energy companies, but more work needs to be done as part of the decent homes programme, and through the introduction of energy performance certificates, which we strongly support, but which, unfortunately, Opposition Members do not.

Graham Stuart: Does the Minister agree that there is no point in having high standards for new homes if those standards are not enforced? Does she share my concern that between a third and 40 per cent. of homes built are reported to fail to meet current standards, and what steps will she take to ensure that those standards are enforced?

Yvette Cooper: The issue of enforcement is important, and that is why we have introduced pressure testing as part of the new standards introduced last year. The standards that were in place before April last year were not sufficiently well enforced, and we have been working on a major training programme to increase enforcement and ensure that the current standards are properly implemented.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we can tackle the issue of energy efficiency in new homes through building regulations, but it is important that we have a policy to deal with energy efficiency in existing houses. By including energy efficiency certificates as part of home information packs, are the Government not demonstrating that those certificates are a vehicle through which we can try to raise public awareness of existing energy-efficient homes across the board? If the Government, while pretending to be green, rejected a measure as modest as making energy certificates part of home information packs, that commitment to being green and to tackling climate change would be nothing more than skin deep.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Energy performance certificates can make a significant difference, particularly if they are linked to new programmes, such as those involving green mortgages and other kinds of grants for home owners. He will know that the measure has been strongly supported by WWF, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and a range of environmental groups; they are strongly saying to us that it would be a travesty if energy performance certificates were to be delayed.

Michael Gove: The Minister knows that the Conservative party—and, for that matter, the Liberal Democrats—is entirely behind energy performance certificates. It is because we take energy efficiency so seriously that we were scandalised to read on Sunday that there is not a single accredited domestic energy assessor available in the United Kingdom. Figures released by the DCLG on Friday reveal that there is not a single accredited assessor in place. A year ago, we were told that we would need 7,000 inspectors—this month, 2,000—but not a single one is in place. What a fiasco on the Minister's watch.

Yvette Cooper: I have to say that, for all the hon. Gentleman's manufactured indignation, more than 5,500 people have entered training to be energy assessors or home inspectors, and 1,900 have passed their exams. The hon. Gentleman says that he supports energy performance certificates, so I must ask him why he has signed early-day motions 1264 and 1265, which oppose not only home information packs but energy performance certificates for rented buildings, public buildings and homes. WWF has criticised his party for doing so, and that is the group that helped his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to travel to the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mrs. Hodgson.

Sharon Hodgson: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the affordable homes that are being built by Ikea in my constituency? They use sustainable materials and seek to be at least 25 per cent. more energy efficient than the norm. People do not even have to build them themselves. Should councils not follow the example set by Gateshead of backing innovative solutions that produce energy efficiency coupled with affordable housing?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lot of innovative schemes have been set up across the country. I went to see one in Redditch just a few weeks ago in which people are looking at different ways of constructing homes. We have to recognise that the house-building process must change fundamentally: we must change the way in which we build, heat and power our homes if we are to meet the challenge of climate change. I agree that there is a lot more that local authorities can do to support that process.

Council Tax

Mark Hunter: What plans she has for a council tax revaluation in England.

Ruth Kelly: As I have made clear on several occasions, the Government have no plans to revalue during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mark Hunter: Given the Government's decision to abandon the council tax revaluation for the foreseeable future, does the Secretary of State have anything positive at all to say to the 2 million-plus households that, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, are struggling to pay council tax? Can she explain, too, why the Government are so committed to retaining the unfair and unjust council tax system, which was introduced, after all, by the Conservatives, and which we all know penalises people on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners?

Ruth Kelly: I do not think that any tax is ever going to win a popularity contest, and the same is true of council tax, which is why we asked Sir Michael Lyons to look at it in what I think is a thorough and valued report. He concluded, first, that council tax is not broken and should be retained. Secondly, on local income tax, which was suggested by the hon. Gentleman's party, he said that there are serious concerns about the fairness of the proposal. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at what Sir Michael Lyons said. Let us work together in making sure that we have a council tax and council tax benefit system that really do mean that we have a secure and stable level of funding for the future.

Phyllis Starkey: The Minister has just alluded to the excellent and thorough report published by Sir Michael Lyons. Will she join me in urging all Members of Parliament to read it very thoroughly before they make pronouncements about the supposed effects of council tax revaluation in, to quote some people, "shoving up" everyone's bills? If people understood the way in which council tax worked, perhaps they would refrain from such scaremongering, which is simply scaring enormous numbers of people for no reason.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes incredibly important points. Sir Michael Lyons himself said:
	"In making the judgment about whether and when to revalue, government must weigh the risks to council tax from a turbulent or painful revaluation, against the risks of allowing the tax base to fall further into disrepair."
	Those are the sorts of considerations that any sensible Government must take into account. Michael Lyons himself said that revaluation was not an urgent priority. The key to council tax fairness and to putting that tax on a sustainable footing was, indeed, council tax benefit, which is why we need to work on his proposals to increase the level of council tax benefit, to make sure that it is both affordable and fair to people in this country.

Caroline Spelman: Last week, a written answer to one of my questions confirmed that more than £4 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on buying details of people's homes from estate agents. On 24 April, the Secretary of State was quick to criticise the tabling of questions to elicit information of this kind. Can she reconcile that written answer with her assertion that the revaluation is not already under way?

Ruth Kelly: I do not think I could have made my position any clearer to the House. We have no plans at all to revalue council tax in this Parliament. In fact, I think I am going to re-label the word scaremongering as "spelmongering", because the hon. Lady is causing fear in houses up and down the country with ill-founded allegations about the Government's plans. Instead of criticising this Government, she should tell us what she plans to do with council tax.

Nick Raynsford: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Valuation Office Agency has to conduct valuations as part of the regular process and that it would be completely preposterous to abandon attempts to find new, more cost-effective ways of carrying out valuations? Will she therefore make it clear that any responsible party, including a responsible Opposition, should be welcoming these changes instead of trying to ridicule them?

Ruth Kelly: As always, my right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As he knows, there have been no changes in the powers of the Valuation Office Agency since 1993, when they were introduced by the Conservatives. Of course, the agency has to keep its records up to date, as any responsible Government agency should; and of course, instead of frightening pensioners, the Conservative party should be supporting these measures.

Lyons Report

Vincent Cable: Whether she has any plans to introduce reforms to the council tax as recommended by the Lyons report.

Ruth Kelly: The Government support the conclusion of Sir Michael Lyons' independent inquiry that council tax is not broken and should be retained. We have already implemented many of Sir Michael's proposals through the local government White Paper and will respond to more of his recommendations in the coming months.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State fully accept Sir Michael Lyons' criticisms of the council tax benefit system, with £1.8 billion of benefit unclaimed in the last financial year and a fall of 10 per cent. in take-up in the past decade? If she does accept those criticisms, when and how will the necessary reforms be introduced?

Ruth Kelly: I accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that we ought to do more about increasing the level of council tax benefit take-up. One of the key conclusions of Sir Michael Lyons' report is that the key to fairness in the council tax system is not revaluation or the introduction of further bands but ensuring that there is maximum take-up. That is why my Department is working very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on improving the process. For example, anyone who applies for a pension credit will now have their council tax benefit details taken and processed at the same time, thus doing away with the need for a claim form. We are examining further measures and considering the scope for making council tax benefit an automatic rebate.

David Taylor: Notwithstanding the hyperventilating headlines in such papers as the  Daily Express, the  Daily Mail and  The Daily Telegraph, is it not the case that by the time the first council tax bills are produced for the next Labour Government in 2011, the council tax system will be in its third decade? Is not reform of banding long overdue, particularly as regards revaluation, which can be done on a revenue-neutral basis that will minimise the numbers of winners and losers, unlike the disaster that we saw in Wales?

Ruth Kelly: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about how council tax is being implemented and about revaluation and rebanding. As I have made clear on several occasions, we have no intention of revaluing in this Parliament; nor do we have any intention of restructuring the banding system, which would naturally go hand in hand with revaluation, in this Parliament. However, Sir Michael Lyons says that even if we did go down that route, which we are committed not to do in this Parliament, that would not make the council tax system substantially fairer than it is at the moment. Clearly, there would be winners and losers, but the key to making the system fairer is to encourage greater take-up of council tax benefit.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that all parties have something to learn from the results of the recent local elections? Will she therefore ensure that, in the reforms to the current council tax, any disincentive to maintain the weekly refuse collection is removed? Growing evidence shows that a weekly collection is not only desirable but essential for health and safety.

Ruth Kelly: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but it is right that local people and communities make such decisions with their local council. It is also right to increase our rates of recycling. Local councils may decide that the weekly bin collection is one aspect of their policy and may want to introduce other measures to increase the rate of recycling. That is their prerogative, but whatever is done should be done in close consultation with local communities.

Andrew Stunell: If the Secretary of State has set her face so strongly against revaluation, rebanding or abolishing the tax, what exactly will she do to lift the burden from the 2 million households already mentioned? Does she accept Sir Michael's figure of 40 per cent. in relation to existing council tax benefit lying unclaimed? He proposes an extension, but what precisely will she do? What is her time scale? Is it not time for some action, not more spin?

Ruth Kelly: I think I have made myself clear. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Lyons report—I am sure he has already done so—he might reflect on some of the evidence presented in it. I have been reflecting especially on chart 7.3, which clearly shows that council tax can be made much less regressive if there is full take-up of council tax benefit. We must ensure that those who are entitled to claim council tax benefit do that. That is why our programme, working closely with the DWP, is so important to increasing the fairness of the council tax.

Bob Neill: If the activities of the Valuation Office Agency are so benign and the likelihood of a revaluation is as remote as the Secretary of State suggested, why did the Government fight like cats in a sack to prevent those dangerous documents "Dwelling House Coding: An Illustrated Guide" and "Digital Photography User Guide" from being released into the public domain until the information was dragged out of them by use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman knows that we put extensive material into the public domain about the definition of bathrooms, digital photography and every other aspect of the valuation office's work. We have even published a document to satisfy Conservative Members' endless curiosity. The valuation office's powers have not been changed since the Conservative party introduced them in 1993. We have no intention of introducing revaluation in this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should stop scaremongering, examine the facts and make a judgment based on them.

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend put her mind to the following question? If council tax did not exist in any part of the UK, would council tax benefit exist?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. However, Sir Michael Lyons has concluded that a property tax—in other words, a council tax—should be a strong feature of the current local tax regime. Indeed, every major industrialised country has a property tax. Of course, we must not only work with the system that we have got, but try to increase levels of council tax benefit.

Eric Pickles: Does the right hon. Lady understand that any implementation of the Lyons recommendations now requires consensus across the political spectrum? Given the massive drop in the number of Liberal Democrat council seats and the total disappearance of Labour councils from many parts of the country, and given that the Government lost their mandate last Thursday and the Secretary of State lost her parliamentary seat, does she accept the new reality?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's set of issues—the Liberal Democrats did not fare well on Thursday. We should bear in mind, however, the fact that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said:
	"I think the way to judge us"
	is
	"to look at Greater Manchester...Are we making progress in places like Bolton"?
	Well, I regret to inform the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that we increased our majority in Bolton, taking seats from the Conservatives.

Affordable Housing

Jim Cousins: What steps she is taking to create more affordable housing (a) to rent and (b) to buy.

Yvette Cooper: We are supporting a 50 per cent. increase in social housing over the current three-year period, as well as supporting increased market housing and shared ownership housing. That is the best way to deliver more affordable homes for the future.

Jim Cousins: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, but does she accept that there are many attractive neighbourhoods in England's towns and cities, such as Fenham in Newcastle, where house prices are rising far more rapidly than the incomes of local people and where more than 300 people apply for every single council-owned family house that comes up? Does she accept that rising house prices are not a sign that market failure has been overcome, but that new ones with great unfairnesses are being created?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that the increase in house prices has put pressure on first-time buyers in particular and on others who would like to be able to afford their own home but instead feel that they need to join social housing waiting lists. That is why we need to build more social housing as part of the answer. We also believe that we need more shared ownership in order to help people buy a share of their own home even if they cannot afford the whole house price. It is also why we need to build more houses in the long term. We have to recognise that we have not built enough houses to meet rising demand for more than a generation. That is why it is so important to increase the level of house building and why it is so tragic that the Conservatives are still continuing to try to block the increased homes that we need.

David Curry: The Minister will be aware of the increasing concern expressed by regeneration agencies and the chief executive of the Housing Corporation at the growing practice of the purchase of property not even to let but simply to hold as an investment without its being occupied. Does she believe that that should be left to the marketplace, and what is her response to those concerns?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a difference between buy-to-let and buy-to-leave. There is concern if large numbers of properties are being bought and then not rented out but held empty, particularly in areas where there is high demand for housing. He will know that we have given local authorities powers and responsibilities to do more to deal with empty homes that are left vacant for a long time. We think that authorities should use those powers.

Ken Purchase: It is interesting to read in today's paper that the Prime Minister-in-waiting intends to build more houses both to let and to buy. Before I throw my hat in the air on behalf of the defend council housing campaign, may I ask the Minister whether she is aware that merely putting money into the private sector increases prices, and that what is needed is more land put on the market and to stop builders hogging land that could otherwise be used for building? Also, does she yet understand that building more council houses where they are required will assist in the process of ensuring that people have somewhere to live where they can afford either to pay the rent or buy? Will she stop the flim-flam that is going on in housing and recognise that the market without subsidy is—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Yvette Cooper: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that more land should be available for housing. We have said that we believe—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can suggest to the Minister that if she faces the Chair, everyone will hear what she is saying.

Yvette Cooper: I want to make it clear so that you can hear me, Mr. Speaker, that we believe more land should be available for housing, which means making sure that the priority is brownfield land. It also means ensuring that more social housing is built and that there is more shared ownership. We have taken steps to make it easier for councils to be able to build homes and for housing associations to increase the level of homes that they build. It requires increased housing across the board. The South East England regional assembly, led by the Conservatives, however, is still arguing for cuts in the level of house building. That is not in the interest of first-time buyers or those in need of social housing.

Maria Miller: The Minister will of course be aware that in September 2004 the Government announced the commissioning of a number of low-cost houses in my constituency through the design for manufacture scheme. Some two and a half years on, we are still waiting for a brick to be laid. Will she confirm that these houses will be built and that they will still cost £60,000, which was the price announced to my constituents by the Deputy Prime Minister just before the last general election?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady will know that a series of different sites were put forward as part of the design for manufacture programme, and they are progressing at different speeds. Investment is taking place and new homes are being built. We think it is right that those homes should be offered at a range of prices, including some that are close to £60,000, some that may be at a lower price, some that may be social housing and some that may be at a higher price. It is important that the new developments should have mixed communities, and I am sorry if the hon. Lady's party opposes that principle.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many Labour Members are worried that with creeping increases in interest and mortgage rates and astonishing house prices—even in the northern counties, in places such as Bolton—if, despite her assurances, there is a downturn in the economy, there will not be enough affordable houses to catch those people who will be forced out of owner-occupation?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend will know that the Bank of England takes the issue of stability extremely seriously, and it is important that it should do so. We are also clear that we need more investment in affordable housing, and that is why we have said that that is a priority for the spending review, and why we are supporting increased investment in affordable housing at the moment.

Pathfinder Scheme

John Pugh: If she will make a statement on the trend in costs of demolition in pathfinder areas.

Angela Smith: Although the costs of demolition in pathfinder areas vary, depending on the type and location of the property, the general trend is upwards. That is principally because, as in the rest of the country, house prices have risen significantly over the past few years in all the housing market renewal pathfinder areas.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for her answer, but will she acknowledge that, as costs are increasing, and are likely to increase further, owing to the speculative purchasing of property, ambitions are being scaled down and that lateral thinking is urgently needed?

Angela Smith: I think that all the thoughts on this issue have involved lateral thinking. It is worth reminding the House of the benefits that £1.2 billion of investment has brought to these areas. Nine thousand houses have been developed, and 35,000 properties have been refurbished and refitted to create new homes. Obviously we have seen an increase in house prices, but that will happen when areas are renewed and become places where people want to live. That means that our investment can go towards renewing and repairing more homes, and towards providing more homes in areas where people want to live.

John Mann: It is not the demolitions that are the problem in the Meden valley; it is whether the builders can actually get on and build the new homes. Will the Minister pull together those running the pathfinder schemes to give a kick to the builders, who now have plenty of demolition land available for new house building? If she does, I can assure her that she will have the support of the five Labour Warsop councillors, including Councillor Peter Crawford—a Labour gain last Thursday.

Angela Smith: I am pleased to say that that was not the only Labour gain on Thursday; there was one in my constituency as well. I take on board my hon. Friend's comments. Clearly, we want to see more homes being built and refurbished, and I will take away the comments that he has made. We are making significant progress, but if there is more that we can do to advance the scheme further, we should obviously look into that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that, when the last Conservative Government successfully regenerated the Hulme estate in Manchester, they found that, in order to create a sustainable community, it was essential for at least 30 per cent. of the original residents to return to the estate from where they came? What work is the Minister doing in that respect?

Angela Smith: In all those areas, we cannot dictate to people where they should live. We have to create areas that people want to live in, and that means addressing not only issues involving housing but those relating to schools, infrastructure and crime. It is worth noting that there has been a dramatic reduction in crime in many of those areas, which encourages people either to stay or to move back in. The important thing is that there should be a stable and sustainable community, and our objectives are not just about housing but about the community as a whole.

Consultation (Northumberland)

Alan Beith: What local bodies and individuals within Northumberland are included in her Department's consultation on local government reorganisation in Northumberland.

Phil Woolas: We are consulting widely across the private, public and voluntary and community sectors. My Department's website lists the key consultees, and explains that anyone may request an e-mail list of particular local bodies that we are consulting in each region. I have arranged for the north-east list to be sent to the right hon. Gentleman.

Alan Beith: Why does the Government's list of key stakeholders consist entirely of national and regional bodies that might have an interest in having fewer local authorities with which to deal? Is it because the Minister accepts that the people of Northumberland, in a referendum undertaken by this Government, have already voted for two districts rather than one?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it would be unwise of me to comment on the proposals for his area, but let me take the opportunity to dispel the idea that we are interested only in regional and national bodies. This is a devolutionary measure, and it is up to councils also to consult local people and organisations—which I know they are doing in the right hon. Gentleman's area.

Tribute

Mr. Speaker: I have the sad duty to inform the House of the death of Lord Weatherill, Speaker of the House of Commons from 1983 until 1992. I wish, on behalf of all Members, to pay tribute to his memory, and in doing so I send my deepest sympathy to his wife Lyn, and to his sons Bernard and Bruce and his daughter Virginia.
	Bernard served his country as a captain in the Indian army during the war. When he visited the sub-continent over 30 years after he left the army, he was held in such high regard that many of the soldiers who had served with him travelled long distances on foot to meet up with their old captain.
	Bernard was very proud of the fact that he had served his apprenticeship under his father, a journeyman tailor. Like most good people, he never forgot where he came from, and always carried a thimble in his Speaker's waistcoat as a reminder of his craft.
	Bernard was elected to the House in 1964 and represented the seat of Croydon, North-East. Throughout his career he had an excellent reputation as a constituency Member of Parliament, and he served his party as a deputy Chief Whip.
	I first met Bernard when I entered the House in 1979. By then he was Chairman of Ways and Means. He was a most approachable man, and was always very kind to young Back Benchers. In his acceptance speech as Speaker, he clearly stated that he would be a Speaker for Back Benchers. He kept his word.
	Under Speaker Weatherill I was invited to become a member of his Speaker's panel, and ever since then he was a person to whom I could turn for help and advice. In fact, we became and remained close friends. Even when he entered the House of Lords, he was a regular visitor to Speaker's House.
	No one would disagree with me when I say that Bernard Weatherill was incapable of malice. He was thoroughly patient and always courteous, and because of that he was held in great affection by every Member of the House. The Lord Speaker informed me that he played a significant part in the House of Lords, and was for a considerable time convenor of the Cross-Bench peers.
	Once again I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his family, and I end by saying that he has an assured and honoured place in the history of this House.

Scottish Parliamentary Elections

Douglas Alexander: With permission, I will make a statement on the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament held on 3 May.
	A great deal of wholly legitimate public concern has been expressed about certain aspects of last Thursday's elections, and I entirely share that concern. It focuses mainly on three areas: the arrangements for the administration of postal ballots, the operation of e-counting machines, and the significant numbers of spoilt ballot papers on the night. When it became apparent in the early hours of Friday morning that difficulties were emerging, I contacted Professor Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish electoral commissioner. I expressed to him my concern that these issues be addressed as part of the statutory review of the Scottish elections that the commission is obliged to undertake, and as a matter of urgency. Sir Neil was able to offer me that reassurance, and that investigation is now under way.
	The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the Scottish parliamentary elections. At the request of the Scottish Executive, it will also be reporting on the local government elections. The commission is an independent body and is committed to ensuring that there is a full and independent review of the Scottish elections. In areas where the commission itself has an operational involvement—for example, in its statutory duty to promote public awareness of electoral systems—the commission will ensure that there is independent evaluation of its own work, as it has done in respect of previous statutory reports. The commission is currently finalising the scope and time scale of the review, but intends to publish a report in the summer.
	One focus of public concern has been the adoption of a single ballot paper for the Scottish elections, and another has been the holding of those elections on the same day as the local government elections in Scotland. The poll for the Scottish Parliament elections is set in the Scotland Act 1998. It has a pre-determined cycle, which the Parliament at the time supported fully. I am not aware of there being any calls to change that. The decision to hold the local government elections on the same day was entirely a decision for Scottish Executive Ministers. It was enshrined in legislation which was fully debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament.
	Without wishing to prejudice the findings of the inquiry, I would like to set out to the House the sequence of recommendations, consultations and decisions that led to the adoption of a single ballot paper for both elements of the Scottish Parliament elections, which are matters for which the Government have legislative responsibility. On 25 May 2004, my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling), announced the creation of a commission, under the chairmanship of Sir John Arbuthnott, to examine the implications of Scotland having four different voting systems. That commission was independent and included nominations from political parties. The commission issued a consultation paper in January 2005 and spent 12 months gathering evidence and carrying out a wide-ranging and extensive inquiry. The Arbuthnott commission issued its report jointly to my predecessor and the Scottish First Minister on 19 January 2006. The report contained a number of recommendations and suggestions, some of them to the Electoral Commission concerning voter education, others to the Scottish Executive—such as a recommendation to move the date of the local government elections—and several to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West made it clear that it was unlikely that we would be in a position to implement those recommendations in the report which would require primary legislation in time for the 2007 Scottish elections. However, there was one matter that could be progressed without the need for primary legislation—the suggestion that the two ballot papers for the regional list and constituency member be combined into one, with the regional list on the left-hand column, based on the example of the New Zealand paper. In light of the views of the Arbuthnott commission, I decided to proceed with a wider public consultation in order to test whether the suggested move to a single ballot paper commanded more general support, and to explore the appropriate design of such a ballot paper.
	The Scotland Office launched that consultation on 9 June 2006. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met with a range of interested parties, including representatives from disability rights groups, to explore these issues. There was a significant level of support for a single ballot paper. Of 29 respondents, the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity party, the Liberal party of Scotland, ENABLE Scotland and Capability Scotland were not in favour of a combined ballot paper. I have requested that all responses to this consultation are placed in the Library of the House. The major political parties who expressed a view were largely in favour.
	Derek Barrie, the chief of staff of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, responded on their behalf on 15 June. He said:
	"The Scottish Liberal Democrats warmly welcome and fully endorse the proposal to have one ballot paper only for the next diet of Scottish Parliament elections in May 2007. This is one recommendation of Arbuthnott that we fully agree with."
	Peter Murrell, chief executive of the Scottish National party, responded on 16 August 2006:
	"The Scottish National Party is in support of the proposed move to a single ballot paper for both votes in the Scottish Parliament elections. We believe that this will aid understanding of both elements of the voting system and, in particular, remove any misunderstanding that the regional vote is somehow a second preference vote".
	Lesley Quinn, general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, responded:
	"The Scottish Labour Party strongly supports a single ballot paper, as this will simplify voting, counting, voter awareness and understanding. A single ballot paper will reduce the potential for voter confusion and be easier for people to use".
	No response to the consultation was received from the Scottish Conservative party.
	Beyond the political parties, the Electoral Reform Society responded:
	"The Electoral Reform Society supports the use of a single ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament Elections".
	SOLAR—the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland—responded:
	"The SOLAR elections working group unanimously agreed to support the proposal that both Scottish Parliament contests be contained on one ballot paper."
	To explore further the issues in advance of decision, as part of this consultation, the Scotland Office requested the Electoral Commission to research with voters the impact of any possible change to the ballot paper format. On 4 August 2006, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote to the Under-Secretary of State enclosing the findings of that research, which involved focus groups in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Dundee. A copy of the research has been placed in the Library of the House, together with the covering letter from the Electoral Commission.
	In that covering letter, Sir Neil McIntosh wrote:
	"As you can see, the research draws a number of clear conclusions for the design of the Scottish Parliamentary Ballot Paper. These conclusions point to the interests of the voter best being served by: A design of ballot paper that incorporates both the regional and constituency ballot papers alongside each other on a single sheet of paper".
	The findings of the focus groups supported the move to a single ballot paper, with a significant majority of respondents agreeing, and with the overall preference in favour of a single combined ballot paper rather than two separate papers. Only after that extensive consultation, involving the widest possible range of stakeholders, the support of the main political parties who expressed a preference, research indicating the best interests of the voter being served by a single ballot paper and clear official advice, was a decision taken to proceed with a single ballot paper for the Scottish parliamentary elections.
	I will now deal with the issue of delays in the administration of postal ballots. The handling of postal votes is increasingly a subject of public interest and concern, which is why we already have stiff penalties in legislation to prevent fraud. The use of postal votes in higher numbers than before makes that all the more important. When it became clear that such delays were occurring in the days prior to polling day, I instructed my officials to contact the Electoral Commission to ensure that those matters would be fully investigated as part of the statutory review.
	However, the processes at local level for the preparation and delivery of postal votes are a matter for returning officers and their staff. They make the contractual arrangements that they judge appropriate for their area. They are well aware of the tight time scales involved in getting out the papers to voters. When the Electoral Commission reports, I will, of course, examine whether the Government can take steps to help ensure that the postal vote problems that beset regions such as the highlands and Dumfries and Galloway, among others, do not happen again.
	Finally, I shall deal with the issue of e-counting. In 2005, the Scottish Executive approached the Scotland Office to discuss the option of using e-counting at the combined poll. That arose mainly because of the benefits in relation to handling a count of ballots under the single transferable vote method. Manual counts of STV would take many days and be highly complex. My predecessor as Secretary of State, after careful assessment of advice, gave an agreement in principle to the option, but stressed the need for systematic testing and evaluation of the equipment and software. That took place throughout late 2005 and into 2006 up to the final procurement decisions.
	Many tests and demonstrations were held for electoral administrators, political parties, special interests and others. Various contingencies were tested, including power failures and ballot papers that had been creased or folded. That process was led by a steering group comprising officials from the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, as well as representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. I am advised that none of the simulations gave any evidence of the kind or scale of problems that we saw in some centres on Thursday night and Friday morning. Clearly, this issue will be central to the Electoral Commission's report.
	There are several issues that need to be explored in relation to the problems encountered in the conduct of these elections. The Electoral Commission must now be allowed to undertake its statutory review which, as I have said, will be available by the summer. I will, of course, update the House at that stage in light of its conclusions.

David Mundell: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement and, indeed, for agreeing to make a statement this afternoon. I am glad that he is now taking the issue of the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections seriously, compared with the cavalier approach that he has shown in the past when the issue has been raised in the House and at the Scottish Affairs Committee.
	Despite repeated warnings about the pitfalls of introducing a new voting system, new ballot papers and a new method of counting all on the same day, the approach of the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office was to carry on regardless. It is not good enough to adopt the Jack McConnell approach to the cost of the Scottish Parliament building—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a statement by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put several supplementary questions, but not to make a counter-statement.

David Mundell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State is responsible, as he himself acknowledges, so will he now apologise to the people of Scotland for Thursday night's debacle? In particular, will he apologise to the tens of thousands of voters disfranchised due to their vote not being counted? Does he agree that it is totally unacceptable that around 100,000 people—compared with 16,000 in 2003—who actually made the effort to go to a polling station had their ballots disallowed, and that while there is no evidence of disproportionate disadvantage to any party, it does create unease among the electorate that in Airdrie and Shotts, for example, where the majority was 1,146, there were 1,536 spoilt papers?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the public's confidence in the electoral system will be restored only if a full independent inquiry into what happened takes place? While the perspective of the Electoral Commission will be important, does he accept that it was integrally involved in these elections and—in particular and as his statement suggests—in the design of the ballot paper? The conduct of the elections was influenced by many political decisions and they, too, must be the subject of scrutiny. In that regard, before giving the go-ahead to the constituency and regional vote single ballot paper, did the Secretary of State actually read the report sent by the commission on 4 August, which showed that there was least scope for voter error when two ballot papers were used, and does he accept newspaper reports that the commission put an overly positive gloss on that report and omitted to disclose the finding that the single-paper option was more likely to lead to errors and therefore contribute to a higher number of invalid votes?
	I accept that the Scottish Conservatives acceded to a single Scottish Parliament ballot paper, but what they did not accept was the use of that ballot paper on the same day as council elections under a different system of voting. Does the Secretary of State accept that every objective body from which evidence was taken recommended the decoupling of the elections, and that since the local government elections would inevitably impact on the Scottish Parliament elections, he cannot shirk responsibility for those two elections taking place on the same day? Does the Secretary of State accept that somebody has to take responsibility for the situation, and that it lies with his Government and with him?

Douglas Alexander: Let me seek to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As my statement made clear, all of us regret the difficulties that were encountered on Thursday and Friday in the conduct of the Scottish elections. That is why it is entirely appropriate that the statutory view that is the obligation of the Electoral Commission be taken forward expeditiously. It is appropriate first to find out what happened and then to understand why those difficulties were encountered. However, I fail to be convinced by the hon. Gentleman's arguments that it would be inappropriate for the Electoral Commission to carry out its statutory obligation.
	The hon. Gentleman bandied around the name of an individual constituency. To maintain the confidence of the Scottish public, it is important that we be very clear that the responsibility for the integrity of results in individual constituencies in Scotland is a matter not for politicians but for the returning officers. If certain results arouse particular concerns, candidates should raise those concerns directly with returning officers.
	I fully accept the need for answers. Even as the results were still coming in, I made contact with the Electoral Commission's Sir Neil McIntosh and made clear to him my desire to make sure that each of the issues that I described in my statement was covered.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the reports in  The Scotsman and other newspapers this morning. I can assure the House that the full research findings received by my office are available to all hon. Members in the Library. I do not accept the characterisation of those findings set out in  The Scotsman this morning. Instead, I take the view set out by Sir Neil McIntosh that I narrated in my statement.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me prior sight of his statement. I am sure that we are all dismayed by the appalling mess made of the Scottish elections, especially when it became clear that as many as one person in 20 who went out to vote was unable to make his voice heard. I welcome the review that the right hon. Gentleman has said will look at the contentious aspects of the spoiled ballots, the postal voting and the electronic counting. I urge that that review be carried out in a way that is as transparent and public as possible, in order to command confidence.
	The elections featured new voting and counting systems, and a new ballot paper design for the old system. The blame for the chaos has been attributed to each of the changes, but does the Secretary of State agree that we should wait for the review to understand properly where the problems lay, and that we must not fall into the trap of tarring all reforms with the same brush?
	Did the Secretary of State and the Scotland Office look at and try to learn from the report into the Greater London authority elections of 2004? Similar problems with postal voting were encountered in Scotland last week, and we should not be making again the same mistakes that happened in the past. Therefore, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that the review's results will be shared across government? It would smack of incompetence if we were to keep making the same mistakes time after time.
	There has been much speculation in the newspapers about the private companies involved in running the postal voting and e-counting for last week's elections, and some people have suggested that the blame lies with them. Will the Electoral Commission look at the contracts in detail? Were stringent enough penalty clauses in place to give the companies adequate motivation to make sure that they were able to conduct the elections without problems?
	Given the evidence from the experts that the single ballot paper was the best option, will the Electoral Commission review the adequacy of the testing that it carried out? It seems that it may not have been robust enough to identify the scale of the problems that were encountered.
	Elections should not be run for the convenience of returning officers or political parties. We must remember that it is the voters who are the most important, so I hope that the commission will interview them, especially the ones who were confused by the system. In that way, we can understand where their problems lay.
	In particular, there has been anecdotal evidence that putting the Scottish National party slogan "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on the ballot paper has caused some people to be confused between the party and the personal votes. Will that matter be looked into as well?
	When the report is published, will the Government invite all political parties and stakeholders to comment on the results and seek to build a consensual way forward? In that way, the cherry-picking of recommendations can be avoided. It is in everyone's interests that the problems are identified and the solutions found. That is vital if elections are to have legitimacy and if the credibility of our democracy is to be preserved.

Douglas Alexander: I shall try to answer the questions put to me by the hon. Lady. First, she mentioned the way that the new voting system, the e-counting and the design of the ballot paper all came together, but she was right to say that we should await the review's outcome. We need a clearer sense of the relative contribution that different elements might have made to the difficulties experienced last Thursday and Friday.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the GLA elections. I am aware that investigations were held at the time into the performance of the firm DRS, the same contractor that was responsible for the count last week. My understanding is that the company's performance in the GLA elections was considered as part of the procurement process.
	I have already been in touch with Sir Neil McIntosh to request that the postal voting issue be considered as part of the review that needs to be carried out. The hon. Lady asked about the tests and whether the contingencies were appropriate. As I narrated in my statement, a wide range of interests were represented on the steering group responsible, including not just politicians but a much wider range of people who have direct responsibility for and experience of administering elections. Clearly she makes a valid point that notwithstanding the extensive work of the project board, during which political parties and not simply the party of Government were invited to observe the operation of the counting machines, difficulties occurred at a number of stations, and it would be entirely appropriate for the Electoral Commission to give consideration to that in the process of its review.
	The hon. Lady raised a specific issue about the designation "Alex Salmond for First Minister" appearing at the top of the regional list. It is fair to acknowledge to the party of which the hon. Gentleman is leader that that was one of the designations previously registered with the Electoral Commission—my recollection is that parties are entitled to 12 designations, and that was one of them. There has been comment since the election that it may have been a contributory factor, but as I said, it is for others to comment on that issue.
	On the hon. Lady's final point, I concur with her view that the responsibility is to identify why the problems occurred and to find solutions and a way forward. That is why I have given an undertaking that I will certainly update the House in light of the Electoral Commission's review.

Sandra Osborne: It is welcome that the equipment was evaluated in advance. What estimate was made of the accuracy of the scanners? Would a manual check on the day of the election have been an advantage to boost confidence in the new system?

Douglas Alexander: Of course there was judged to be a high level of accuracy in the electronic scanning, but it is worth bearing in mind that there was the facility, which was used on the night, for manual examination of papers over which there was dispute. In that sense, electronic counting was not to the exclusion of the possibility of a manual count; there was provision whereby disputed papers could be considered by manual examination.

Angus Robertson: There was no doubt about the result of the election, which was victory for the Scottish National party, but the chaos in the counting, the postal votes and the spoiled ballots was a debacle. Did the Electoral Commission warn the Secretary of State of concerns about the design of the ballot paper? When the ballot paper size became apparent, did he decide that all must appear on one page, and at the end of the ballot design phase was there any further testing? Will he now publish all relevant ministerial correspondence? The statement was completely inadequate. It did not include reference to the necessary full, independent judicial inquiry and the Secretary of State has not faced his responsibilities, which frankly should involve him considering his position.

Douglas Alexander: First, I have assured Sir Neil McIntosh of the full co-operation of Ministers and officials in the inquiry being undertaken by the Electoral Commission—the statutory review set down as the responsibility of that independent electoral watchdog. In turn, the Electoral Commission has made it clear that where matters touch on its direct responsibility, there will—as in the past—be independent evaluation of that role. Frankly, the interests of Scotland are best served by allowing the review to take its course, to ensure that as expeditiously as possible we can find answers and solutions to the types of problems that arose on Thursday and Friday.

Brian H Donohoe: If I were to give my true impressions of Thursday, I doubt that I would be allowed to remain in the Chamber. Given the experience both at the polling booths and at the count in the evening, can the Secretary of State give any indication as to the split in the spoiled papers of the national vote against the local government vote? In all the counts I saw, the number of spoiled papers in the local elections was far greater. Does the 100,000 include that figure or is it additional to the 100,000?

Douglas Alexander: I urge caution on two fronts. First, a final tally is still to be reached on the number of spoiled papers, but according to the information that I received this morning, it does not reach 100,000. Although a number of figures have been bandied around in the newspapers, I urge caution about the number of spoiled papers. We should allow people to continue with their work. Secondly, on the relative balance of spoiled papers between the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections, I am not in a position to offer the House guidance on that matter, but I take comfort from the fact that, at the request of Scottish Executive Ministers, the Electoral Commission review will not only examine the Scottish Parliament elections but will give due consideration to the local government elections that took place contemporaneously.

Andrew Tyrie: Is this not just the latest in a catalogue of so-called electoral reforms introduced by the Labour Government that have gone wrong one after another? It comes on top of the scandal of the postal votes farrago in the general election, and the deregistration of thousands of service voters. Is it not redolent of banana republic-style chaos in the electoral system, and is it not essential that we have an inquiry not only into how the situation came about, but into whether the election should be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I counted about three supplementary questions, when there should be only one.

Douglas Alexander: I am not convinced by the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am not sure that such terminology is helpful, in that it seeks to prejudge the serious and considered review being undertaken by the Electoral Commission. A whole range of new measures have been introduced by the Government to give greater assurance to voters on voting methodologies, and it ill behoves him to seek to create a partisan advantage out of what is a serious issue for the Scottish people.

David Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet the strong suggestion that in no circumstances at all should the DRS company or electronic counting machines be allowed to play any part in the next general election for the Westminster Parliament?

Douglas Alexander: I am sure that I, and many others both in the Cabinet and elsewhere, will give due consideration to the review by the Electoral Commission.

Alistair Carmichael: Without wanting to diminish in any way the standing of the Electoral Commission, many of us have real concerns about the adequacy of a report produced by it. The commission may just be too close to the process. Does the Secretary of State accept that the commission's review may not be the last word on this matter, and will he keep in mind the possibility of a further inquiry by somebody who is independent of the Scottish political scene, but who knows a bit about politics? I am thinking of somebody of the standing of former President Mary Robinson from the Republic of Ireland. It may be necessary to involve somebody like that in order to restore the integrity of our electoral system.

Douglas Alexander: I would not wish to undermine in any way the important role that the Electoral Commission plays. The hon. Gentleman's description of a body that stands outside the Scottish political process but is of some standing seems to fit fairly accurately the work of Sir Neil McIntosh and the Electoral Commission more broadly across the United Kingdom, as our independent elections watchdog. None the less, of course I will consider whatever recommendations are made by the review, which, as I said, will report by the summer, and I will report back to the House in the light of that review. I reinforce the fact that the Electoral Commission itself is clear that, as in previous statutory reviews that it has had to undertake, where matters bear directly on the conduct of the commission there will be a full independent evaluation of that part of the process.

Anne Begg: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the interpretation of the ballots was the same across the country? I ask particularly with regard to the parliamentary elections: if a voter ranked people 1, 2 and 3, which was obviously wrong, was the 1 always taken to be the same as a cross, or was that sometimes counted as over-voting? Were the same criteria used in all constituencies when deciding whether to agree to a recount? I have heard that in one constituency where the majority was less than 100 a recount was refused, but in another, where the majority was almost 400, the leader of the Scottish National party—although it was not his constituency—insisted to the electoral returning officer that a recount should take place.

Douglas Alexander: Let me try to deal with my hon. Friend's points in turn. First, she asked about the conduct of electoral returning officers in different constituencies throughout Scotland. Guidance is offered to each of those electoral returning officers, but the decision at each count is ultimately a matter for the individual electoral returning officer. Secondly, the determination of whether to allow a recount in a particular constituency is ultimately a matter for the individual returning officer. Judgments were exercised by individual returning officers according to individual circumstances.

Gerald Howarth: Many people not only in Scotland but throughout the country will be appalled by the Secretary of State's complete lack of contrition for the national humiliating chaos and shambles in Scotland. May I suggest that the Secretary of State take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall), abandon this obsession with electronic systems and go back to the old-fashioned system that commands the confidence of the people of this country? The returning officer in my borough of Rushmoor in Hampshire decided not to use an electronic signature verification system, and instead to resort to the mark 1 eyeball, the result of which was that we had no problems in Rushmoor. The returning officer, Mr. Andrew Lloyd, did an excellent job and I commend him to the Secretary of State for his advice.

Douglas Alexander: I am now certainly aware of the advice that the hon. Gentleman has offered me. I assure him that we will give serious consideration to recommendations that might emerge from the Electoral Commission review that is under way on the conduct of Thursday's elections.

David Hamilton: I, along with most MPs, watched the battle take place on Thursday and Friday—and I have great concern that although people in the electoral system will be reviewing the system, they are actually part of the problem, so we must be careful about that. May I make a point about the confidence of the Scottish people? When the majority is lower than the number of spoiled papers, should not all those papers be recounted? That applies to all parties.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend used the phrase "in the electoral system", so it is important that I make it clear, not only to him but to the people of Scotland and throughout the country, that the review will be carried out by the Electoral Commission, not by a politician or a political party. That being said, I have also made it clear that the Electoral Commission realises that there will be an independent evaluation of any work in which it was involved as part of the prior steps leading to the election. That is the appropriate point at which to leave the matter until the review has been concluded. The question of whether any further steps will be necessary in the light of the review can more appropriately be determined after we have seen the Electoral Commission's recommendations.

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is a hallmark of this Government that they increase the power and size of the state, yet then cannot run it properly. It is clear that that incompetence extends to the electoral system and to people's democratic rights—so will the Secretary of State invite the United Nations to act as an electoral observer in any other elections that are held in the remainder of this Parliament?

Douglas Alexander: First, for clarification, let me make it clear that the e-counting process was overseen not only by parts of "the state", as the right hon. Gentleman describes them—the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament—but by representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. It is not entirely accurate to suggest that this is a matter of party politics. However, I am intrigued to note that despite the right hon. Gentleman's sense of indignation about the results in Scotland overnight on Thursday and on Friday, he carefully chose to suggest the United Nations, rather than a super-national institution somewhat closer to home with more experience of running elections: the European Union.

Katy Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the circumstances of the Cunninghame North count, where the Labour candidate was refused a recount, despite the concerns raised about the Arran ballots by several individuals who were completely unconnected with the Labour party, and the close nature of the election? The returning officer initially said that the majority in the election was 54, but shortly thereafter, with no explanation, the figure changed to 48. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that we need to determine whether the guidelines were adhered to on Thursday night, and whether they need to be strengthened?

Douglas Alexander: I hope that the House will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to pass comment on results in individual constituencies. If candidates have concerns and wish to take legal steps in light of the determinations made by electoral returning officers, it is appropriate for those officers to give due consideration to the matter, but I am not convinced that it would be appropriate, or without prejudice to the right of candidates to take the action that they deem necessary, for me to pass comment on individual constituencies at this stage.

Richard Ottaway: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Greater London authority elections three years ago, there were 385,000 spoiled ballot papers—three times as many as in the recent Scottish elections? Will he ensure that the findings of his review are used in next year's GLA elections, and if, as he says, the same contractor was involved in the GLA elections three years ago and the Scottish elections last week, will he please ensure that that contractor has nothing to do with the GLA elections next year?

Douglas Alexander: In terms of ballot papers being ruled out, that was a matter for individual electoral returning officers, and in that sense I am not sure that the conflation of the issue of the contractor and that of the number of spoiled ballot papers holds as an argument. That being said, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the terms of the Electoral Commission statutory review of the elections will be widely distributed, not simply among Members of the House but beyond.

Jim Devine: Last week was an embarrassment, and we owe the people of Scotland an apology. I was at a count that was suspended at 5.30, and there were 1,700 spoiled papers. It recommenced at 12 o'clock and did not finish until 20 minutes to 3 in the afternoon. I share with hon. Members on both sides of the House a concern about the Electoral Commission's role in investigating the matter. My right hon. Friend should look to some other body to carry out the investigation.

Douglas Alexander: Our first obligation is to secure answers. A statutory review by the Electoral Commission has already begun. I have made it clear that where that inquiry touches on matters that are directly the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, there will be independent assessment. The appropriate step at this stage is to allow that work to be completed. The review is not without time limit; there is an expectation that it will be made available during the summer. At that point, there will be an opportunity for the House to reflect on the recommendations, and for any further steps to be taken.

Andrew Robathan: Is not the simple lesson to be drawn from last Thursday's fiasco in Scotland that the Government's tinkering with our electoral system has been hugely damaging, whether we are talking about e-voting, the incomprehensible ballot papers produced in Scotland, the corrupt postal voting system, or proportional representation? Until recently, our electoral process was an example to the world, but under the current Prime Minister and the current Government, the democratic process has been undermined, and we have been reduced to the level of a "banana republic"—those are a judge's words, not mine.

Douglas Alexander: Amid his indignation, the hon. Gentleman suggested that there was e-voting in Scotland on Thursday. As someone who actually voted in Scotland, let me say that it is clear that he does not understand that it is e-counting, rather than e-voting, that we are discussing today. If he is suggesting that it is fundamentally wrong that Members of Scottish Parliament are elected under a proportional representation system, I would simply say, with respect, that that matter was resolved at the time of the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, and I am not convinced that that is particularly relevant to our discussions today.

Gordon Prentice: We do not have the figures for rejected ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament elections, but if the number is very high, what will it take for the election to be rerun?

Douglas Alexander: I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and offer an analysis or description of why the spoiled ballot papers were spoiled. In a limited set of circumstances, people choose to spoil their ballot papers intentionally, but I think that the prudent and responsible course in the circumstances is to allow the Electoral Commission to take forward its statutory review and explore whether there were other factors that contributed to the number of ballot papers spoiled in Scotland on Thursday evening.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State confirm that on election night, when ballot papers were rejected they were shown to the agents and the candidates and the rejection was agreed, and that when the declaration was made, the number of spoiled ballot papers was announced? If that is the case, why can he not tell us now how many ballot papers were rejected?

Douglas Alexander: As I have said, when I sought from officials this morning the definitive number of spoilt ballot papers, a figure was available for a number of constituencies, but not the total number of constituencies in Scotland. That work is continuing. On the first point that the hon. Gentleman put to me, I cannot comment with authority this afternoon on the conduct in each individual constituency at the count, which is rightly the responsibility not of a politician but of the electoral returning officer in that constituency. If there are specific concerns about specific counts, the appropriate action to take is to discuss that with the electoral returning officer in that particular constituency on the night, and thereafter, if necessary, to take whatever further action is required.

Mark Lazarowicz: There is no doubt that great damage has been done to trust in the political system by the events of last Thursday and Friday, and everyone involved in Scottish politics, as a politician or in an administrative position, has a responsibility to make sure that they never happen again. In that connection, will my right hon. Friend have early discussions with the Scottish Executive about introducing legislation to ensure that as far as possible local government elections under the single transferable vote system are not held on the same day as Scottish parliamentary elections—or, indeed, UK parliamentary elections?

Douglas Alexander: As my hon. Friend knows, for a long-standing campaigner for devolution like me, the rightful place for the decision on the timing of local government elections in Scotland is Holyrood. I am sure that careful consideration will be given to the report that the Electoral Commission is preparing by the incoming Scottish Executive, of whatever hue. That said, it is heartening that Scottish Executive Ministers have already made it clear that they wish the conduct of the Scottish local government elections to be considered as part of the statutory review undertaken by the Electoral Commission.

Ian Davidson: I do not wish to prejudice the forthcoming trials of the guilty, but I do wish to make some points about the remit given to the Electoral Commission. In particular, may I ask whether it will be allowed to make publicly available all the ballots that were ruled out, so that they can be examined—either the ballots themselves or copies thereof, particularly the local government ballots? That will enable us to clarify whether, when three Xs had been marked, there would have been some way of allowing at least one of those votes to be counted. Can the rules for recounts be clarified, and can we ask the Electoral Commission to clarify whether a financial clawback from the returning officers and the firms involved would be possible, as they have not delivered adequately? Will my right hon. Friend examine the question of wasted votes, too? In Glasgow there were more than 78,000 wasted Labour votes in the second ballot. There were also 91,000 wasted Labour votes in the West of Scotland, and 112,000 wasted Labour votes in Central Scotland, on the second ballot. I certainly hope that the House will reject his proposal that the European Union be called in to monitor the situation. It should not be called in to monitor any European—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: I shall try to deal with the multiple questions that my hon. Friend put to me. First, for the sake of clarification, I can assure him that it was not a proposal of mine that the EU be called in to look at the conduct of elections in the United Kingdom. I was merely reflecting the fact that it was intriguing that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) had not chosen the EU, given its role in electoral observation missions elsewhere in Europe. On my hon. Friend's second point about so-called wasted votes, he is a long-standing campaigner on the issue, and given his commitment to the Co-operative party and its ideals, he has long argued that there could be a case for standing Co-operative candidates from the regional list. That is a matter on which I am sure he will continue to campaign.
	The final matter that I wish to address is his first point about the remit given to the Electoral Commission. It is important to clarify the fact that I did not invent the Electoral Commission's role overnight on Friday, and thereby designate it as the appropriate statutory body. As I understand it, under section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has a statutory obligation to review elections, including the Scottish Parliament elections, so it is not a mechanism that has been devised for these particular circumstances. It is a statutory review which, as a matter of course, has been taken forward. My intervention with the Electoral Commission on Friday morning was to ensure that under the terms of that statutory review, the specific issues that were of concern, and which I elucidated in my statement, would receive consideration, and I was given that assurance by Sir Neil McIntosh.

John Robertson: Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) about spoilt papers, and returning to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) told us about the Cunninghame North shambles, I too ask whether we can look at the papers. There were 1,700 spoiled papers on the regional and Scottish Parliament vote—over 10 times more than normal. I asked to look at those papers to see what the problem was, but that was denied me—all I was shown was a television screen. One vote was counted because there were two dots in a box. I am sorry, but this is not democracy. What is my right hon. Friend going to do to look at all these ballot papers, which have now been flung in a bucket somewhere, and to put the situation to rights for the people whose votes were not counted?

Douglas Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that these ballots are not, as he suggests, flung in a bucket somewhere, but kept. On his substantive point about the facility whereby people are able to see the ballot papers, it is the case that a photograph of the ballot paper was shown on a number of television screens at counts across Scotland. However, the fact remains that I cannot comment today on the conduct of individual returning officers at individual counts, whether in Glasgow or elsewhere. If there are legitimate concerns that it would be appropriate to raise with returning officers, they should in the first instance be raised with those returning officers by the candidates affected.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[10th Allotted Day]

Climate Change

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Christopher Huhne: I beg to move,
	That this House calls on the Government to set targets for carbon emissions informed by science and not political convenience which will help to hold global warming to within two degrees of pre-industrial levels; recognises that the best current estimate is that this requires stabilisation at between 400 and 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere; and urges Ministers to inject a new sense of urgency into efforts at home by setting out an annual action plan to curb the UK's own carbon emissions, establishing a climate change committee of the Cabinet to ensure joined up government, tackling quickly the most rapidly growing emissions in the transport sector by a more steeply graduated vehicle excise duty and a rebasing of air passenger duty onto the emissions of each flight, offset by other tax cuts, speeding up the effort to curb the waste of energy and the high emissions from buildings not just by raising thermal efficiency requirements in new homes but also by renovating existing homes, changing the incentives on energy companies so that they make more money by saving and not selling more energy, providing comprehensive insulation packages funded mainly by energy mortgages repayable through utility bills and setting an example by ensuring that all future buildings on the Government's own estate are built to the highest energy efficiency standards.
	It is good to see that Conservative Members are not too ashamed of their party's manifesto in the Scottish elections. At least some of them are attending the debate, despite the fact that their party scored nought out of 10 for its environmental commitments, according to Friends of the Earth. The toxic Tories north of the border reminded me of the analysis undertaken by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace of the voting record of Conservative Members of the European Parliament on environmental matters during the last Parliament, which found that they were not merely the worst of all the British political parties, but the worst in the whole of the European Union.
	Clearly, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has some sins still to repent. He has been leader of his party for 16 months and has yet to put on the table a single firm proposal that would have any impact on greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that his party will be able to support our motion as a first step to rectifying that omission. That would also fit with the ambitious agenda revealed in  The Times today by the Conservatives' policy chief, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who assures us that
	"Cameron conservatism, so far from being merely a set of attitudes, has a specific theoretical agenda. It aims to achieve two significant paradigm shifts.
	First, a shift from an econocentric paradigm to a sociocentric paradigm. Secondly, a shift in the theory of the state from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm."
	No doubt that is deep stuff, but I think that he would perhaps do better were he to speak in English.
	I wish that I could argue that the Government's record on climate change has been good, but it has not. There is real concern that their aims are not being informed solely by the science of climate change, which must surely be the starting point. I think that we are agreed across the parties that a rise in global temperature of 2° C above the pre-industrial average is at the limit of what should be tolerated if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, with rising sea levels, drought, floods and extreme weather events. However, the Government have been less than open about what that temperature limit means for our behaviour. They have drifted towards a figure of 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide alone as the aim of our emissions policy globally. We now know what that would mean according to the latest—the fourth—assessment report of working group 3 of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was published yesterday in Bangkok. The working group is responsible for assessing what we need to do to limit global warming. It finds that a range of 485 to 570 parts per million of carbon dioxide alone—in other words, what the Government have been suggesting—would lead to a global mean temperature increase of not 2° C, but 3.2° to 4° C. The top end of that range is nearly double the 2° C that the Government specify. The same report shows that holding global warming to 2° to 2.4° C would require a CO2 equivalent concentration of 445 to 490 parts per million.
	Clearly, there is a great disjuncture between the Government's rhetoric in saying that they want to avoid dangerous climate change and the reality of the targets that they set. On the basis of the evidence of the report, if the Government continue to believe—as they should—that 2° C of global warming is the danger threshold, they must also accept a revision of their international aim and, indeed, a revision of the 60 per cent. reduction in emissions in the draft Climate Change Bill. I hope that Ministers can tell the House exactly where the Government stand on the matter, as the United Nations IPCC report makes it clear that their current position is no longer tenable.
	No doubt there will be much hand-wringing in parts of British business at the prospect of a more ambitious target, but we have much to gain by being ahead of the global pack. The countries that establish first mover advantage will have the proprietary technology to give their exporters an edge in new global markets. Energy saving does exactly what any sensible business does anyway: it saves costs. The Stern review has already stated that we would benefit by moving more quickly rather than allowing higher costs to build up later. The UN IPCC report reaches similar conclusions. The costs of the most radical stabilisation proposal are put at no more than 0.12 per cent. of GDP each year, or less than 5.5 per cent. of the GDP level in 2050.

John Bercow: In the light of entirely justified exhortations to improve the environmental performance of the private sector, what assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the performance of the public sector?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter with which I shall deal later. No doubt he knows that the Sustainable Development Commission has had some critical words to say about the Government's performance.
	Even at the maximum costs for which the UN IPCC calculations allow, we would still reach the level of income that we might have attained in 2050 by 2053. That does not seem an excessive price to pay for a planet fit for future generations.

Andrew Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UN figures are predicated not on unilateral action by this country, but on the assumption that we carry the whole developed world with us?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a global agreement. It is useful that the Chancellor of Germany, as President of the European Union, did so much at the recent Berlin and Brussels summits to put that on the global agenda. However, we must plan for success and not assume that no one else will follow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the EU agreement becomes more ambitious if other developed countries follow along with us.
	The first part of the motion merely calls on the Government to bring their professed goals for carbon emissions into line with their assessment of the dangerous temperature rise.

Nick Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman calling for Britain to act more ambitiously on long-term targets unilaterally?

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to make it clear that we are calling for the Government to set a more ambitious target. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his recent pamphlet, in which he clearly set out some of the muddle into which the Government have got themselves on such matters. It makes a useful contribution to the debate.
	The second part of the motion calls on the Government to set out an annual action plan to reduce our own carbon emissions in line with our target. If we are to persuade the developing countries to follow suit, there has to be a far greater sense of urgency about our own efforts in the developed world. That is a moral imperative, given that we rich countries may be responsible for some 70 per cent. of all the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
	There is also a strong case for urgent action because of the danger that, if we do not act quickly, the costs of climate change will not mount steadily, but will tip over into highly dangerous areas. Feedback effects such as the melting permafrost on northern peatlands could release large amounts of methane; drying weather could lead to accelerated dieback of tropical rainforest; glacier melt could accelerate due to under-ice streams; and the vanishing of snow and ice cover could curb the albedo effect reflecting warmth away from earth.
	An annual action plan should be linked to far greater co-ordination of the Government's efforts, as the third part of the motion suggests, through a dedicated Cabinet Committee on climate change. No amount of Whitehall reorganisation can bring all the public activities that affect climate change into one Department—nor should it. The Foreign Office is responsible for climate change negotiations; the Department for International Development needs to reflect in our aid policy the challenge of climate change for the poorest countries; the Department for Communities and Local Government sets building regulations, including those on thermal efficiency; the Department of Trade and Industry runs energy policy and therefore policy on electricity generation; the Department for Transport sets airport and aviation policy; the Treasury controls the taxes that are such an important influence on decision making on fossil fuels and carbon emissions; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for the energy efficiency of existing housing stock, not to mention the methane output of our livestock.
	The potential for a good old-fashioned Whitehall shambles is well established. The Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that climate change is one of the greatest policy challenges of our time and we know that one of its principal effects is rising sea levels and worsening storms, yet last summer DEFRA cut the Environment Agency's flood defence budget. Meanwhile, the Department for Communities and Local Government is still planning more than 100,000 new homes on flood plains and the Department for Transport is planning an airport expansion that is wholly inconsistent with the need to control aviation emissions. Because the Chancellor was spooked by the fuel duty protestors, the Treasury has steadily cut green taxes as a share of GDP from 3.6 per cent. in 1999 to 2.9 per cent. in 2005. The Department of Trade and Industry was responsible for research cuts at the centres for ecology and hydrology that helped us to understand how flora and fauna would react to climate change. Even more bizarrely, there were cuts in the research budget of the Hadley centre at the Met Office, which had established itself as one of the leading world centres for the study of climate change.
	The truth is that the Government do not have a well co-ordinated policy on climate change. As in many other areas, they have elevated spin above substance. They have merely a public relations campaign masquerading as a climate change policy. That is why we make the proposal in the motion for some mechanisms within Whitehall to ensure a semblance of joined-up government around an annual action plan that would help to deliver real policies, not just rhetoric.
	The most urgent priority is surely to tackle the transport sector, where our emissions have grown most rapidly since the Kyoto base year of 1990. We need a more steeply graduated vehicle excise duty that will shift most car buyers to low-emission models.

Angus MacNeil: With a steeply graduated vehicle excise duty, what allowances would the hon. Gentleman make for people in rural areas, particularly farmers and crofters, who need 4x4 vehicles to run their livestock? I would hope that he would not penalise such people unnecessarily.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman knows very well, because we have dealt with this matter in previous debates, that we have proposed discounts for people in remote rural areas and exemptions for working vehicles. The key issue is to ensure that we shift our vehicle fleet towards low-emission vehicles, and we need a more steeply graduated vehicle excise duty to ensure that that happens.
	We also need to abolish air passenger duty in favour of a tax based on the emissions of the flights. That would set up an incentive for the airlines to fill all the available places and to move more rapidly towards more fuel-efficient aircraft. It is certainly not the whole answer to sustainable aviation, but it would be a real start. Much of the rest, including imposing a kerosene tax and ensuring that aviation is included in the European Union emissions trading scheme, needs to be done at EU level if there are not to be adverse effects on the competitiveness of our businesses.

Angus MacNeil: I am still unclear as to whether, under the hon. Gentleman's proposals for the vehicle excise duty, there would be a real-terms increase for working crofters and farmers paying for their very valid working vehicles.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be unusual for the people whom he is describing to buy new high-value 4x4s. Our proposal would affect only new purchases, and it would be designed to shift the pattern of car buying towards low-emission vehicles. One thing that would certainly happen is that car manufacturers would move towards producing more fuel-efficient engines right the way down. In attempting to effect behaviour change of this kind, it is not quite so easy to hold the world constant as the hon. Gentleman might suggest. The whole point of our proposals is to encourage behaviour change.

Mark Lazarowicz: As we are discussing the effects of vehicle excise duty on people in rural areas, may I take the hon. Gentleman back to a question that I have raised about whether a city such as Inverness would fall within his definition of a remote area in which people would be entitled to a reduction in fuel duty? One of his colleagues has suggested that it would not, but another has said that it would. Does not that illustrate the difficulty of finding an excuse for a particular area being exempt from such measures if there are perceived electoral advantages involved?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman knows that if we always find difficulties—if the glass is always half empty—we will never make progress. Sometimes it is necessary to establish boundaries—income tax or inheritance thresholds, for example—and sometimes people find themselves on the wrong side of those boundaries. Such measures are not necessary popular, but unfortunately we have to make real changes in our behaviour and it is therefore important to strike out in that direction.
	Crucially, every penny raised through green taxes to help us to change our behaviour collectively should be handed back in income tax cuts, thereby shifting the tax burden on to activities that we want to discourage from activities such as work, risk and effort that we wish to encourage.

Daniel Kawczynski: On the hon. Gentleman's previous point about exemptions for certain people in rural areas, there are parts of my constituency in Shropshire where people can live only if they have a 4x4, because they are so remote and mountainous. Would it not create huge amounts of bureaucracy and red tape to run a pilot to decide who would and would not be exempt from these extra charges?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting topographical point about the mountains in his constituency, and I look forward to travelling across them to find out for myself whether his description is accurate. He must remember that there are already new 4x4s available that are below the top emissions category. Taking that into account when considering our proposals for rural areas, I think that I can allay his fears on that score, and I hope that the Conservatives will be able to support us.
	Finally, the motion deals with the crucial issue of the built environment: our buildings, which are responsible for half our carbon emissions. It calls on the Government to set an example by ensuring that their own massive purchasing power goes into the building of low-carbon schools, hospitals and other public buildings. Sadly, as we have already heard from Opposition Members, the Government's record is appalling. As the Sustainable Development Commission has made clear, DEFRA's ability to wag a finger at other Departments has been entirely undermined by its record on pushing up carbon emissions from its own office buildings three times as quickly as the rise in the national average. The Government's role in setting an example for the commercial sector is crucial, and I hope we hear from Ministers what firm proposals they intend to make to extend best practice in the public sector.
	Equally important is a much more concerted effort to improve the energy efficiency of our own homes. Let me give just one shocking statistic that brought home to me how unambitious we have been in saving energy rather than wasting it. If the average energy bill in Britain were the same as that in Sweden, every household here would save £385 a year—we are literally burning £50 notes—yet average temperatures in Sweden in January are 7º C colder than they are in Britain.
	Part of the answer is to raise thermal efficiency standards for new buildings, and the Government are moving towards such action. There is no reason why we should not proceed more rapidly to a GreenHouse standard for new homes that would cut energy use and carbon emissions by 95 per cent. This is not rocket science. It has already been achieved in Germany with the PassivHaus standard, and the intriguing experience there is that the initially high extra cost of more than a fifth has now all but vanished. Following the building of several thousand such homes, the extra cost of construction is running at just 2 per cent., and it repays itself in a few months' savings on the householder's energy bill. The GreenHouse standard would make it easier for young families to get on the housing ladder, provided that building societies take account—as the regulator should ensure that they do—of the savings in their energy bills.

Lynne Jones: Germany operates the same high standards for refurbishments as for new build. Would the hon. Gentleman advocate that here?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady anticipates the next section of my speech. Adding microgeneration means that energy savings can be even greater than those that can be achieved through a move to much higher thermal insulation standards in new build. Genuinely carbon-neutral homes are now attainable, but however ambitious we are with new building standards, the truth is—as the hon. Lady rightly reminds us—that three quarters of the homes in which we will be living in 2050 have already been built. We need a far more ambitious set of plans to tackle our existing housing stock than the Government's Warm Front scheme and the energy efficiency commitment. At the current rate of progress, it will take 125 years to upgrade the housing stock, and even then it will be only to modest cherry-picking standards involving, for instance, cavity wall and loft insulation.
	We need to offer packages that can improve the sealing of windows, doors and chimneys, clad walls either inside or outside in solid-walled properties, and install under-floor insulation and efficient boilers—even, soon, combined-heat-and-power boilers. We need those packages to be testable, so that householders know they will get the energy savings that they have been promised. If those conditions are met—the Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Home Improvement Council are interested in helping to ensure that they are—hundreds of thousands of householders will jump at the chance to cut their energy bills. The obvious way to finance such packages is through an energy mortgage attached to the property that is repaid on the same bill as that of the utility company. It is likely that about one fifth of the cost of such improvements would need to be met by the energy company to ensure that the energy mortgage could be repaid from the savings in energy made by the householder.
	That is why we also suggest reshaping the energy efficiency commitment. The energy efficiency commitment is currently simply a levy on consumers to pay for energy efficiency improvements. It would make sense instead to encourage energy companies to find the most effective ways of curbing energy use by changing their incentives. They currently make more profit by selling more energy. If they were subject to a "cap and trade" scheme, such as the European Union emissions trading scheme—and, to give the Government credit, similar to a measure envisaged in an enabling clause of the draft Climate Change Bill—they could collectively have a declining sales target, and they would maximise their profits by selling even less and selling on their allocations under the scheme. If they sold more than their reducing allocations, they would have to buy that in the market. Therefore, an incentive would be established.

Nick Hurd: I fully share the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman places on energy efficiency, but I want to be clear about the precise meaning in terms of the GreenHouse package of the proposed policy that he is discussing. From reading his stimulating pamphlet, it is my understanding that the message to my constituents is that the Liberal Democrats would require them to take out a loan of between £5,000 and £10,000 from the local utility company, which will then have a charge over their property while they pay it off. Is that really the hon. Gentleman's intention, or have I got that wrong?

Christopher Huhne: As we make clear in our proposals, for any period of time that we might envisage it would be extremely unlikely that any measure of compulsion would be necessary. One of the extraordinary results from the German scheme is that there has been such a great rush of households wanting to participate that the building industry has found it hard to catch up. We must be wary in that respect and ensure that the necessary skills are in place in the British building industry for us to be able to deal with such circumstances.

Nick Hurd: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposed measure will be entirely voluntary, because his pamphlet gives the impression that there will be a hard rump of people who will not take up the offer that is made and who will be forced down that route?

Christopher Huhne: As the hon. Gentleman can see by looking at the pamphlet, there is no proposal for the scheme to be on anything other than a voluntary basis. Clearly, in the longer run we will have to assess its progress, but we hope that it can be completed on a voluntary basis, with the necessary incentives. However, there is no doubt that we need the sort of systematic proposals that we have made if we are to tackle energy efficiency.

Michael Gove: The definition of compulsion is, of course, an elastic one. One of the proposals that was floated at the same time as the publication of the hon. Gentleman's pamphlet was that there should be a tax penalty—specifically a stamp duty tax penalty—for those who do not make the improvements that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Is that part of his party's policy?

Christopher Huhne: It is not part of our party's policy. At some point in the future additional incentives might be required to complete the process of improving energy efficiency. If that were the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could think of a number of tax incentives—one of which might indeed be a discount on stamp duty. That would not involve raising taxes, but it would provide people with additional inducements and therefore additional incentives to go ahead with such improvements.
	Climate change is the great challenge of our times. We need to tackle it with urgency because any carbon emitted into the atmosphere has a long life—a century or more. Yet far from delivering cuts in carbon emissions, the Government have presided over increases in them since 1997. As the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change report shows, we need to be much more ambitious, much more focused and much more radical. Time is now running out. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes publication of the draft Climate Change Bill, which will make the UK the first country in the world to establish a long term legal framework for managing the transition to a low carbon economy, setting ambitious binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 26 to 32 per cent. from the 1990 level by 2020 and at least 60 per cent. by 2050, which can be revised in light of significant developments in international policy and climate science, and establishing an independent Committee on Climate Change to advise on setting statutory five year carbon budgets and to report to Parliament annually on progress; further welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy and the proposals in the energy review to cut carbon emissions by up to a further 25 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020; recognises that home energy use for heating, lighting and appliances accounts for more than a quarter of domestic UK carbon emissions; applauds the Government's proposals to improve building standards so that from 2016 all new housing developments must be zero carbon; recognises the Government's commitment to improving the energy efficiency of existing homes and tackling fuel poverty through Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment; welcomes the Budget 2007 report statement that by the end of the next decade all householders will have been offered help to introduce energy efficiency measures; and looks forward to further development of policies in this area."
	Climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race. It is a top priority for the Government, at home and internationally. The broad cross-party consensus on the urgency of the issue is a strength of our politics. Sometimes, when people outside the House observe the partisan nature of our proceedings, they misunderstand the fact that we can have knockabout debate that is, rightly, questioning of the Government, while still reaching a broad consensus as to the policy prescriptions and action required. That is important, because climate change does not discriminate, whether in the UK, US or the rapidly emerging countries such as China, India or Brazil. Climate change is a threat to us all and, therefore, a challenge to us all.
	Without global action on climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. All countries will be affected. The poorest nations will be hit hardest, but the UK and other developed countries will not be immune from the consequences. We are already starting to feel those consequences, as the fourth assessment report published last Friday graphically demonstrated.
	We are committed to the EU's 2° C target temperature rise to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said, that implies a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 50 per cent. by 2050. As the EU has said, that means that, because developing countries must grow, we and other developed countries must cut emissions by between 60 and 80 per cent. We are ready for that. We already have our 2050 target of at least a 60 per cent. cut for CO2 only. In relation to other greenhouse gases, more emissions reductions will be achievable, and we will do even more if needed. We will, of course, keep our goals under review in the light of scientific evidence and international developments, and the draft Climate Change Bill contains a specific clause allowing us to do that.

Christopher Huhne: Why have the Government framed their targets in terms of CO2 alone when, as we all know, the basket of greenhouse gases contains other much more potent ones? Surely there should be an overall target, not just one for CO2.

Ian Pearson: When we were discussing our targets, we thought it right to focus on the main greenhouse gas emitted, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, the large majority of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2. That is not to say, however, that we do not need to do more in relation to other greenhouse gases. Certainly, there is scope to consider that as part of the Climate Change Bill, and I look forward to future debates with him on the subject.

Robert Goodwill: Is it not true that the Government signed up to the regulation on fluorinated gases, which will make a dramatic impact on the amount of other gases emitted? CO2 is increasingly rapidly, whereas most of the other greenhouse gases are being reduced and moderated by legislation and new technology.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the UK has made significant reductions in methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, notwithstanding our progress on carbon dioxide, on which we fully accept that we need to do more.
	In particular, we need to do more in the light of the warnings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change from Bangkok earlier this week, and from Paris and Brussels earlier this year. The UK remains committed to demonstrating leadership internationally through our actions at home. No major industrialised country has done more than Britain to tackle climate change. Our national programme has made significant progress, through the climate change levy, the UK emissions trading scheme, reform of vehicle excise duty to encourage the take-up of low-polluting cars, differentials in fuel duties and the landfill tax. We are exceeding our Kyoto targets, and are the only country on track to double them. We have also shown real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic growth and high employment levels.
	Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that carbon dioxide emissions and household income were related, with the wealthiest societies responsible for the highest emissions. In the UK, that link is now being broken. We are showing the world that one can have green growth—that emissions reductions and prosperity can go hand in hand. Between 1997 and 2005, our economy grew by 25 per cent. and greenhouse gas emissions were cut by 7 per cent.—or by 11 per cent., allowing for the effects of the EU emissions trading scheme.

David Howarth: The Minister mentioned international leadership. Will he undertake that the Government will show more such leadership by including international shipping and aviation within the terms of this country's greenhouse gas targets?

Ian Pearson: Currently, there is no internationally accepted definition for aviation and shipping emissions, which is one reason why they do not appear in national inventories under the IPPC. The UK is certainly pressing for international agreement on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have been pressing for including aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme as quickly as possible. However, we need a global deal on aviation and shipping, just as we need one on a post-2012 framework.

David Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Would it not be better if the Government took a unilateral lead on this issue? Otherwise, no progress will be made. This morning, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research told the Environmental Audit Committee that it has been able to calculate perfectly reasonable estimates of the British share of international aviation and shipping emissions by using a simple 50:50 rule? Could the Government not do the same?

Ian Pearson: We are showing leadership on this issue. For example, the UK will be the first country in the world to legislate for CO2 emission reduction targets. However, because aviation and shipping emissions are internationally traded, more complex issues arise. Taking action unilaterally would not necessarily produce benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We need to get international agreement on comprehensive definitions that cover all countries and that will ensure that we have a range of policies to tackle future aviation and shipping emissions, just as we are tackling emissions from other sources through the emissions trading scheme and other measures.
	Success will and does rely on the support and active participation of all sectors of society. The private sector has a vital role to play in avoiding dangerous climate change, and more and more businesses are recognising that there is a value and importance in reducing CO2 emissions. Through the emissions trading scheme, some of our biggest companies are already actively involved in a highly effective cap and trade scheme. The Government are committed to using the EU ETS as a key tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, we showed strong leadership in setting a robust cap for phase 2 that will deliver savings of 29 million tonnes of carbon per year. We have also consulted on a proposal for an energy performance commitment in the UK—a mandatory emissions trading scheme to reduce emissions from energy use by large, non-energy intensive organisations by at least 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2020. The results of that consultation will be released shortly.
	We continue to fund Envirowise, which has helped business to save some £1 billion through increasing resource efficiency and avoiding waste. We also fund the Carbon Trust to work with companies that want to avoid climate change. The trust has given practical advice and tailored support to some 10,000 businesses through energy audits, carbon management services and energy efficiency loans.
	Businesses must continue to take action to reduce their CO2 emissions, but as individuals we must also take action to reduce our carbon footprint. The Government have been working hard to help. A new CO2 calculator will soon be launched that will allow people to calculate their personal CO2 footprint and provide suggestions on how to reduce it. Guidance will also be available to help people make informed choices about the most effective carbon offsetting products on the market. Through the Warm Front scheme, we are helping people in fuel poverty to insulate their homes and to install boilers that are more energy efficient. Some 1.3 million households have benefited from that so far. Since 2001, households have benefited from £3 billion-worth of energy improvements through the obligation for energy companies to provide efficiency improvements for their customers, including low-energy light bulbs, insulation and high-efficiency appliances and boilers. The Energy Saving Trust has carried out 4.5 million home energy checks since 1993, including 450,000 in 2006 alone.
	More activities are in the pipeline, but significant progress is being made. We have real achievements under our belt and we need to achieve more for the future.

Andrew Miller: It is a good idea to try to educate the public about the energy usage of household equipment. The idea of some sort of ready-reckoner is a great one, but we must not encourage people to start switching from things that are not yet at the end of their lives. We need to take into account in the equation the energy costs of manufacturing.

Ian Pearson: I agree. We should first try to avoid CO2 emissions, then reduce them and then consider recycling. Only as a last resort should we look at offsetting. It is right that reuse should be an important part of our package of proposals.

Jo Swinson: We support many of the schemes that the Minister outlines in the fight against climate change, but does he accept that the progress that the Government seek to make on climate change is undermined by their refusal to accept annual legally binding targets on CO2 emission reductions? If we had yearly targets we could see exactly what progress was being made on that vital issue and not have to wait until the end of a Parliament, when a Government may be on their way out of office, to hold them to account.

Ian Pearson: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Annual targets do not work for one simple reason. We have cold winters—for example, 1996 and 2001 were both relatively cold winters—when energy consumption and CO2 emissions go up by some 3 to 4 per cent. compared with other years. By picking a five-year period, we are acting consistently with Kyoto. When other Governments considered the issue in the run-up to the agreement at Kyoto, they thought that annual budgets would not work, and that is why they chose a five-year budget period. I stress that we will have annual reporting to Parliament and it will be clear whether we are on course to meet our budget requirements. The hon. Lady and others will no doubt want to hold us to account, just as we want to be held to account for our actions.

Christopher Huhne: It is difficult to understand the Minister's point about annual targets. The assessment will be made in retrospect, after the year in which the carbon emissions happened, so we will already know what the temperature was in the winter and what the GDP growth was. Both of those are easy adjustments to make in any benchmark, and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England makes that sort of adjustment every month. I cannot therefore understand why Ministers persist in arguing that it is too difficult for the Committee that they propose to set up for the draft Climate Change Bill.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is an economist, so he is used to dealing with many variables. The practice of having budgets that are set over a five-year period where the total amount of CO2 counts is a simple way of demonstrating what progress the Government are making. It will be clear to the public whether we are on target to meet our budget because we will report, as regularly as the information is available, on our performance against those targets and in accordance with the legislation that we hope to put before the House in due course.
	I stress that more action is in the pipeline—for example, the phasing out of inefficient light bulbs and the removal of inefficient white goods from the market. We also need to continue our work to engage the public. An "Act on CO2" campaign has recently been launched to help make individuals more CO2 literate. Part of that will be an "Act on CO2" deal, which will set out how the Government and individuals can work together to reduce CO2 emissions. Everyone can make a difference, especially in their homes through improvements to insulation, the use of energy-efficient products, better energy management, increasing recycling and wasting less food.
	The public sector also needs to play its part and give the necessary lead. It is important that we meet our commitment of making the Government office estate carbon neutral by 2012. I acknowledge that our performance to date has not been as good as it should have been, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh made a number of comments in that regard.
	That is why the Government are taking a number of steps to improve our record and that of the wider public sector. We are working hard to make sure that buildings and products procured by the Government are energy efficient. Every secondary school in the country is being rebuilt and refurbished. As part of that, over the next three years £110 million will go into helping them reduce their CO2 emissions. Some schools will achieve carbon neutrality.
	Many Government Departments have energy-efficient lighting and are phasing out the use of inefficient light bulbs. Government offices make increasing use of renewable energy, including biomass boilers, solar panels and wind turbines but, again, we need to do more. We are also reducing the environmental impact of Government travel. All official and ministerial air travel is captured under offsetting schemes, and we are committed to reducing CO2 emissions from road vehicles. We are also leading the way by reducing those emissions from the Government car fleet

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for giving way. If individual citizens of this country are to play their full part in mitigating climate change, they need to know how much energy they use every day, rather than over three months. What are the Government doing to encourage smart metering in homes, so that people can change their behaviour?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we announced a few weeks ago that we are to introduce free real-time displays over the next couple of years. They will be available to all households that want them, and they will give clear and easily digestible information about a home's energy impact. People will be able to see what effect switching appliances on and off has, and that will make a difference. In addition, the web-based CO2 calculator will give a range of information to help people to reduce carbon footprints.

Clive Efford: We are trying to educate the public about how they can play their part in tackling climate change, but does my hon. Friend agree that schools have a very important role? They are educating the adults of the future, so what work is he doing with the Department for Education and Skills to encourage schools to participate more? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website has some useful information for schools.

Ian Pearson: I agree entirely. As I mentioned, a sum of money has been allocated to help improve the greenness of our schools. I have visited a number of schools that already have wind turbines and solar panels fitted as standard. As we roll out our building schools for the future programme, we need to make sure that the new buildings are low or zero-carbon emitters, if at all possible. In addition, they must be well adapted for the climate change that, to a certain degree, we are bound to face in the future.

Lynne Jones: A number of schools will be refurbished under the building schools for the future programme. Will there be as great an emphasis on the standard of energy efficiency in refurbished schools as in new ones?

Ian Pearson: Yes. The Government want the refurbishment of existing schools to receive as much attention as efforts to ensure that new schools are low or zero emitters of carbon in the future.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh talked about the existing building stock. It is clearly responsible for a large proportion of carbon emissions, but I do not want to downplay the importance that the Government place on minimising emissions from new development as, by 2050, a substantial proportion of total development will have been built after 2007. That is why it is important to recognise the Government's commitment that all new homes should be zero carbon by 2016, with a phased introduction of higher standards in the interim. The hon. Gentleman is encouraging us to do some of the things that we are already doing to raise house building standards. We may not have started from the same place as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries that have focused on thermal efficiency for well over 70 years, but we are ratcheting up building standards and making a real difference. The Government are making a real commitment to do far more for the future.
	Over the next few months, we shall be saying something more about the sustainability of existing buildings, both domestic and non-domestic. There are already programmes to upgrade energy efficiency in homes—

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Ian Pearson: Let me give the hon. Gentleman the figures first.
	Preliminary data suggest that household emissions have dropped by about 5 per cent. over the past two years. There is much more to be done but the early signs are encouraging, and that reduction is a welcome step forward.

Peter Ainsworth: It is indeed welcome, but can the Minister explain why emissions from the Government estate have been rising, including those from his Department?

Ian Pearson: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, the DEFRA office estate is going through a transition phase—moving from some buildings to others—and all the buildings are covered in our carbon footprint. As I said at the outset, our performance across the Government estate has not been as good as I would like it to be and we need to make real improvements, which is why we are giving it increasing attention at ministerial and senior official level.
	Sustainability in homes and buildings is not just about construction but about how we heat and power them. We want more heat and power generated locally through renewable and low-carbon processes such as microgeneration and combined heat and power. The new planning policy statement on climate change will require a significant proportion of energy supply for substantial new development to be gained renewably or from a decentralised, renewable or low-carbon, energy supply.
	That is real progress, but it is by no means the last word. We need to do more and we are committed to do so. As a Government, we shall continue to give a lead in tackling climate change both at home and internationally. The UK is the first country in the world to propose a strong legal framework for tackling climate change to meet our goal of becoming a low-carbon economy. As I said, the Climate Change Bill will put into statute our targets for reducing CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent. by 2050 and by 26 to 32 per cent. by 2020. We are talking about CO2 equivalent figures, too, which take into account the greenhouse impact of other gases.

Martin Horwood: At the opening of his speech, the Minister said that the Government were ready to make a range of reductions of between 60 and 70 per cent. Why is not the higher figure of 70 per cent. the target in the Bill?

Ian Pearson: I said that our target was a reduction of at least 60 per cent. in CO2 emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels. I stressed that the figure was for CO2 only. The figures in the Commission document at the spring Heads of State summit referred to a 60 to 80 per cent. reduction in CO2 equivalents by developed countries, so if the impact of non-CO2 emissions is included, our approach is broadly consistent with that of the Commission.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Pearson: For the last time, and then I must really make some progress—and a flight.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Liberal Democrats appear to suggest that 70 per cent. is the right figure to go for, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible to propose a higher figure in the Bill—perhaps 80 per cent.—if the science supports such a target?

Ian Pearson: I said at the start of my speech that a clause in the Bill allows us to change the targets, in the light of scientific and other international developments. That remains the case.
	I must apologise for having to leave the House before the end of the debate, but I am representing the Government at the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting in New York. Regrettably, it is one of those occasions when things cannot be done by means of a video conference; we need to be there in person. We will certainly offset the carbon cost of my flight and the carbon costs incurred by the officials who are attending the meeting.
	Five-year carbon budgets will require the Government to set binding limits on aggregate CO2 emissions over the budget period. We will set three successive carbon budgets, covering 15 years, in legislation. They will limit the total amount of carbon dioxide so that every tonne of carbon dioxide that is emitted will count. As I was saying earlier, we think that that is a much more sensible approach than annual targets. That more sophisticated system of carbon budgeting will be very clear to UK businesses. It will give them certainty in terms of their future planning and investment while ensuring that the Government are accountable to Parliament and to society for their actions.
	A committee on climate change will advise us on the pathway to the 2050 target, on the level of the carbon budgets and the reduction effort needed across the economy, and on the optimum balance between domestic action and international trading in carbon allowances. The power and responsibility to create a low-carbon economy rests with us all and everyone will have to contribute—from businesses to Government, the public sector, consumers and civil society. What is required is action at all levels—within the UK, through the EU, and through international agreement.
	The Climate Change Bill will create a more coherent approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK. It will involve ambitious targets, powers to help achieve them, a strengthened institutional framework, and clear and regular accountability to Parliament. Together with the proposals that will emanate from the energy review and that will be set out shortly in the energy White Paper, the Bill will equip the UK for a successful transition to a low-carbon economy and enable us to act as a beacon for others internationally.
	We need to see action at an international level. Without a new global deal on climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. The spring European Council agreement was a landmark decision. What it had to say on emissions targets, renewable energy and energy efficiency leads the way internationally. The window of opportunity to reverse the rise in global emissions is narrowing. The science and the economics suggest that to avoid catastrophic climate change global carbon emissions must peak in the next 10 to 15 years. But climate change is not an insoluble challenge. The technologies to reduce energy demand, increase efficiency and develop low-carbon electricity, heat and transport are within grasp. As has been well demonstrated by Stern, the earlier we act across all countries and all sectors, the better it will be for us all.
	We do, however, need to adapt to climate change, as advised in the working group II report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change in April. We need to plan adaptation for the future, but also for today. The impacts are already beginning to be felt. The 2003 heatwave caused 35,000 deaths across Europe and there were £6 billion worth of insurance claims for flood and storm damage between 1998 and 2003 in the UK alone. The Government take adaptation seriously, but I recognise that sometimes it is not talked about enough in the House.
	We are putting the framework in place to allow Departments, local authorities, businesses and individuals to play a role. That is being done through the development of an adaptation policy framework for Government, which we will publish this year and which will be extended to other sectors next year, through the inclusion of a clause on adaptation in the Climate Change Bill, through funding for the development of groundbreaking probabilistic climate change scenarios for the UK, which will be published next year, and through continued investment in areas such as flood defence, which is an old chestnut that the hon. Member for Eastleigh keeps recycling in his speeches. However, the simple fact of the matter is that we are spending 30 per cent. more on flood defence in real terms than we were in 1997.
	The Government have shown consistent leadership in the field of climate change by setting bold targets and pursuing ambitious policies. We are determined to continue to show international leadership and that drive is strengthened by our domestic programme. We can take some comfort from the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are already between 15 and 19 per cent. below 1990 levels, depending on whether emissions trading is included, and that we will double our Kyoto commitments. However, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. We need to go further domestically and at the same time work to ensure that we agree a comprehensive post-2012 framework internationally that will stabilise greenhouse gas emissions fairly and effectively. That is the task that lies ahead and we will devote all our energies towards it.

Gregory Barker: Any opportunity to debate action on climate change is welcome and there is a great deal in the motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats with which the official Opposition can agree. However, the Minister is also right: when it comes to global warming, the truth is that there is more that unites the parties at Westminster than separates us. There is nothing between all three major parties in our analysis of the seriousness of the challenge, even if the Government are somewhat tardy and muddled in their linking of the latest science to their policy projections. The general direction of policy is not hotly disputed—the battleground is how fast and how far.
	This would seem an appropriate time to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his tireless work over the past decade to put climate change at the top of the international agenda. Nearly 20 years ago, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, became the first world leader to send a clarion call to the planet to wake up to the dangers of man-made climate change. It would be churlish not to recognise the current Prime Minister's considerable efforts to build on Lady Thatcher's legacy as a forceful international advocate for action against global warming. I sincerely hope that he will continue that role when, after a decade at the helm, he finally retires to make way for an older man.
	It is not the general analysis of the problem that divides us from the Government, nor even many of the solutions that they advocate. It is the singular lack of urgency, after 10 years of complacency, that we find unacceptable. Erudite speeches abroad are no substitute for effective action at home. Three manifesto commitments on reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2012 have been quietly shelved. Everyone knows that Labour will meet its Kyoto commitments only because of the carbon dioxide cuts achieved under the last Conservative Government, largely with the dash for gas, despite the fact that when the Labour Government took office, they tried to turn the clock back with a policy bias in favour of dirty coal.
	I would do a disservice to the debate if I were to wrangle over only Labour's serial failure since 1997. The new politics of climate change are about the future, not the past. The scale of the challenge requires politicians to find new ways of working together. We cannot afford the efforts of one individual Parliament, or one Prime Minister's Administration, to be anything other than part of a coherent long-term strategy to combat the greatest threat that mankind faces in the 21st century.
	On Saturday night, I joined a debate on climate change with the students of the Pestalozzi college in my constituency. The Pestalozzi organisation brings disadvantaged but gifted children from the world's developing countries to the United Kingdom so that they can study for the international baccalaureate and prepare for university. Students from Asia, Africa and the Americas gave their perspective on the global challenges that we face. One of the many inspiring comments that were written on a banner that they produced at the end of the evening was, "Our approach: less accusation, more action". Thanks to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the modern Conservative party is squaring up to the daunting changes required to tackle man-made global warming, but it is doing so with a sense of hope and optimism.

Clive Efford: If the Conservatives are facing up to the challenges of climate change, would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why certain Conservative authorities have cut recycling facilities? How many of the recently elected Conservative authorities does he anticipate will make similar cuts, and will he defend their record in future years, after they have made those cuts?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I do not recognise a word of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, if he was out on the doorsteps in the national campaign, that Conservative authorities across the country have the best record on recycling—[Hon. Members: "Not true!"]—excepting possibly Liberal-run Liverpool. He will also know that Labour authorities have the worst.

Christopher Huhne: rose—

Gregory Barker: We have had plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of recycling; we came before the country with a clear slogan, which was—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could debate the motion, and the amendments before the House.

Gregory Barker: As I was saying, thanks to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, the modern Conservative party is squaring up to the daunting changes of climate change with a sense of realism, as well as of hope and optimism. We have embarked on the most ambitious and comprehensive environmental policy review in our party's history under the leadership of Zac Goldsmith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). That work is close to completion, and we will be able to find common ground with the Liberal Democrats in many elements of it. I hope that in future they can work with us more constructively than they have done in the recent past.

Christopher Huhne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregory Barker: It was a great shame that the hon. Gentleman tore up the cross-party agreement that was so meticulously put together by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I hope that when he intervenes, he will confirm that he will be more constructive in his politics in future.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He will know very well that when we suspended our participation in our agreement with the Conservative party it was because the Conservatives were unwilling to bring forward any specific policies whatever on the subject, and that continues to be the case. Before he gives us any lectures about following in his wake, or about the efforts of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), he should be aware that the latter's local authority, West Oxfordshire, has just cut its recycling budget. That will have an effect on global warming, through the effects on landfill and methane. When the right hon. Member for Witney is able to show that he has some influence over his own—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions must be brief.

Gregory Barker: We have had 25 minutes of listening to the dirge of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne); that is quite enough, and I do not intend to take many more interventions from him. It is a shame that he could not be a little more constructive. Obviously, the new politics of climate change have yet to infect the Liberal Democrats.
	The Liberal Democrat motion contains many good ideas, several of which have been championed by Conservative Members, but the motion is nevertheless uncosted, broad-brush and loosely worded, which is fine for a party facing perpetual opposition, but somewhat more problematic for a party clearly focused on forming the next Government. However, it is right to flag up the latest science, and absolutely right to call for a new sense of urgency. An action plan is well overdue, too, and many people will be surprised to learn that there is no Cabinet Committee charged solely with climate change policy. However, when it comes to tackling transport emissions—a subject mentioned in the motion—Conservative thinking is considerably more ambitious and comprehensive than Liberal Democrat policy on transport. In recent times, it has seemed to begin and end with an attack on 4x4 vehicles, which in reality represent only a fraction of the real problem.

Andrew Miller: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would point out to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that a Lexus hybrid uses more carbon per mile than a Vauxhall Astra built in my constituency?

Gregory Barker: That is a very good point, but the key point about hybrids is that they are part of an emerging technology, and only by supporting hybrids will we support the investment that will go on to push back the boundaries to promote better and cleaner energy. A Lexus 4x4 is certainly a good deal cleaner than the Porsche Cayenne Turbo in which I saw the Liberal director of campaigns driving around in the last by-election, and which was stuffed full of Liberal MPs.

Mark Lazarowicz: I have to report to the House that when I recently left the Commons one evening on my bicycle, the hon. Gentleman, who was following in his car, offered to take my briefcase home for me, so he is certainly consistent in his policies. However, will he tell us what Conservative party policy is on congestion charging or motorway tolls, so that we can be clear about that?

Gregory Barker: Our position on congestion charging is very clear—it is up to local people to decide what is in the best interests of their local communities. In certain areas, it may have a place, but it is up to the local community to decide.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is shadow Secretary of State for Transport, has made clear, we have a much more ambitious vision than the Liberal Democrats. Over the next generation, we have set a clear goal of securing a dramatic reduction in the average level of carbon dioxide emissions from cars on our roads. We want the average emission level for new cars in the UK to fall from 170 g per km to 100 g per km by 2022. By 2030, we want that figure to be an average for all the cars on Britain's roads. The only realistic and deliverable route to meet such a target is to facilitate a transformation in the types of automotive technology in use in the UK. We all need to drive greener cars.
	That is not a transformation that can be delivered overnight. Cars have a life cycle, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) correctly pointed out. Consumers only buy new cars from time to time, and manufacturers take years to develop new models. We cannot change those realities, but we must do what we can both to incentivise consumers to buy greener cars and to incentivise manufacturers to introduce new models and technologies as quickly as possible. The next Conservative Government will introduce a programme of incentives to achieve that goal with clear milestones along the way. We have asked our quality of life policy group to make clear recommendations on the nature of a programme to set Britain at the forefront of international efforts to make motor vehicles much less environmentally damaging, and that work is due to be published later this summer.
	We have an open mind about the technologies that will enable us to make that transition. We already know that hybrid technology and new generation diesel vehicles have made major steps forward in improving emission levels. Biofuels, too, will play an important part in moving towards the achievement of our goals, but only—and it is an important caveat—if they come from truly sustainable sources. We have made it clear that if we are to improve our stewardship of the environment without taking the unrealistic step of reducing people's access to motor travel unnecessarily, changing technology is an essential part of the route that we must travel, and we must begin to encourage the acceleration of that technological change right away.
	Vehicle excise duty is a useful instrument to encourage consumers to switch to greener cars, but ultimately, unlike the Lib Dems, we do not begrudge successful people expensive cars, provided that they do not pollute the planet. One place where people understand that and have started to introduce an ambitious change strategy is California. Writing in  The Sunday Times at the weekend, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom we greatly look forward to welcoming to the Conservative party conference in October, said:
	"Technology, that's how we should deal with global warming instead of trying to make people feel guilty. In short"—

Andrew Miller: The Terminator.

Gregory Barker: Indeed, he is the Terminator, and he is coming after the hon. Gentleman's seat. He continued:
	"In short, the technology is there. The demand is there. If governments lead, investment will follow, business will follow and jobs will follow."
	He concluded:
	"Global warming has presented humankind with a tough challenge. Since we all share the planet and breathe the same air, whatever our nationality or political stripe, it only makes sense to work together.
	Turning the climate crisis into an opportunity—for investment, clean and green technology and jobs—is a matter of leadership."
	Sadly, in the UK we do not see those qualities in Government. Despite encouraging signals abroad and sensible progress in some areas, the bottom line is that, despite the urgency, there has not been hands-on leadership at home. That must change.

Elliot Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about urgency, but that is the weakness in his argument. While the programme that he is outlining on technology is all very worthy—that certainly has a role to play—applying it to new vehicles will be an incredibly slow process, and biofuels can have only a limited impact. It is a mistake to rely solely on technology, because we need a range of tools, including road pricing, whereby people could be encouraged to move on to public transport. Why has his party turned its face against that?

Gregory Barker: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need a range of tools, but we are not seeing ambitious policies from this Government in any area; I have yet to see credible road pricing proposals from them. It is all hypothetical—after 10 years, there is not a single ambitious policy in place. Throwing the solutions back on to the official Opposition shows that there is a dearth of thinking and action on the Labour Benches: we will show them how to do it when we are in government.
	A clearer, coherent picture will necessarily include a greater focus on high-speed rail in the UK. It will also require a greater willingness to use tax as a way of ensuring that the full environmental impact of short-haul flights is priced into the cost of a ticket. We need a tax system that discourages pollution across the board and rewards people for making the right choices. We know that the Environment Secretary agrees with us, because he said as much in his secret, but leaked, pre-Budget letter to the Chancellor. He rightly referred to the fact that aviation is our fastest-growing source of greenhouse emissions, potentially set to rise from 5 per cent. currently to 25 per cent. by 2030. Tellingly, he referred to the embarrassment of Labour's policy on airport expansion, which is totally at odds with its stated aims of reducing carbon emissions.
	That brings me to green taxation. It has rightly gained a bad name under Labour, because although the share of green tax has fallen, whenever the Chancellor has levied a new tax in the name of the environment, it has been all grab, with no offsetting in terms of reductions in the tax burden elsewhere. His green tax motives sit ill with the fact that in his first eight Budget speeches he mentioned climate just once, on average, and at most twice. Then, lo and behold, following the election of the new leader of the Conservative party, it leapt to 16 mentions in 2006. Who says that an old dog cannot learn new tricks? Under this Government, green tax has become just another shade of Brown stealth tax. That has to change.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the Government introduced the climate change levy in 2001, that was accompanied by a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' national insurance contributions, and that the introduction of the aggregates levy was accompanied by a 0.1 percentage point cut in employers' NICs? It is absolutely unjustified to levy the charge that there was no offsetting in this area, and I hope that he will withdraw those remarks.

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I will not because, sadly, those are simply two remarkable exceptions. What about air passenger duty? What about vehicle excise duty? The list goes on. Unfortunately, the Brown chancellorship is not green.
	The next Conservative Government will not increase the tax burden on hard-working families but rebalance taxation so that the polluter pays and the non-polluter pays less. However, we do not simply need a programme of green taxes; we need a green programme—full stop. I am pleased to say that the Climate Change Bill will go some way towards tackling that. We warmly welcome it and will work as constructively as possible with the Government as it passes through the Commons to make it a better and more effective measure. However, it provides only a framework for action rather than action. Given Labour's miserable record in achieving medium-term CO2 targets, we need annual targets in the Bill to keep the Government and any future Government on course and held to account.
	It is ironic that a Chancellor who has never shied away from placing ever more reporting and regulatory burdens on business balks at the idea that his Government might find themselves truly accountable annually. There is no alternative. We must start making a difference in this decade and begin achieving our stretching targets. It is our shared responsibility to the next generation to act now, not pass on our failures to our children. Labour cannot put off all the difficult decisions to some distant or unspecified date. As much as Conservative Members champion the private sector—we want the power of the markets to be fully utilised in the fight against global warming—Labour cannot simply rely on the emissions trading scheme to save its record from years of inertia.
	The Government cannot simply rely on the ETS and, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "leave aviation untouched" for the best part of a decade. That is not tenable. Labour cannot cross its fingers and hope that nuclear power alone will provide all the miracle answers. However, the Government would be right to examine the way in which we generate and use energy as a source of huge savings in carbon dioxide. With or without nuclear power, we believe that there is huge potential to cut CO2 in the domestic energy sector. By and large, the sector has remained pretty much unchanged since the Chancellor was a boy in the early 1950s. However, we will unleash a new energy revolution and harness the huge efficiencies made possible by uniting our demand for both heat and power only if we decentralise to the most local level.
	Decentralised energy runs counter to the Government's instinctive centralising tendencies. It goes against the grain of the Chancellor's old, 1980s mindset. However, the answers to 21st century energy problems lie not in a drawer in Whitehall but in our local communities. We need the Government to hack away at the red tape and overbearing regulation that currently inhibit decentralised energy. We need the Government to make it not only easier but advantageous for new local payers to enter local electricity markets, whether they are large businesses such as Tesco, public sector institutions such as schools and hospitals or simply a family trying to do their bit through photovoltaic roof tiles.
	We need to be far more ambitious in targeting energy saving, and innovative in providing solutions. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is right to say that we need to make energy service companies a reality in the United Kingdom. To do that, we need to change the culture of the Government's regulators to put the reduction of CO2 emissions at the centre of their mission. It cannot simply be an add-on. We need the Government to empower local communities to make a difference, to set new standards locally, to blaze a trail and thus allow local communities to go further than the clunking fist in Whitehall currently deems fit.
	If we are to make up for lost time and start to make strides in the next decade towards an enterprising, low carbon economy, we need genuine leadership at the centre and local delivery. As last Thursday's massive gains of nearly 900 seats in the English local elections show, when people want something delivered locally—cleaner streets, warmer homes or local action against climate change—they will vote blue and go green.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to discuss what is clearly one of the most pressing environmental issues—if not the most pressing—that we face this century. Clearly, a great deal is riding on the issue of climate change, which indeed unites both sides of the House. I welcome that.
	I would say gently, however, to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that he really should not set as much store as he does by the dash for gas. There are two reasons, the first being that what he said is not true. If my memory serves me correctly, the dash for gas accounts for about 30 to 40 per cent. of carbon dioxide reductions. Secondly, what he said gives encouragement to people outside this country who do not wish to take difficult decisions and implement the necessary action. They say that the UK's progress is simply a result of the dash for gas. That is not true. The UK's achievement is the more remarkable because most of it took place in a period of sustained economic growth—not in a recession, as was the case under the previous Administration. The achievement is remarkable, and it demonstrates that it is possible to reduce emissions without ruining the economy. That is a very important message to get across, particularly to the United States and other countries. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to give comfort to those who argue against taking action.
	I also disagree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about targets. Targets have a role and a place, and they can be used in all sorts of different ways. However, I much prefer the option suggested in the Climate Change Bill, which is carbon budgeting. I prefer that because it takes us in a much more radical direction. Carbon budgeting brings about the kind of cultural shift that we need, both in this country and internationally. Carbon budgeting can align the budget targets with financial budgets relating to the business of government, and allows the use of all the different levers that the Government have available.
	To achieve the reductions that we need, we must have a cross-government approach in which every Department is involved, and tackling climate change becomes part of the culture of Government. I believe that there is a danger in arguing straightforwardly for targets, which is too unambitious. Budgeting also provides an incentive to maximise savings in any one year, because it provides some bankable carbon in case there is a poorer performance in another year. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about targets.
	I agree that the Government have to lead by example, and I believe that they have done so in all sorts of areas. I welcome the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to the Prime Minister's role, and particularly to his influence in providing international leadership. Climate change is, of course, an international issue, and we need international solutions, which I shall touch on again in a few moments.

Peter Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman was waxing eloquent, and rightly so, about the benefits of carbon budgeting. Most businesses—and, indeed, Government Departments—set budgets ahead for one year, not five years. Why, then, do we have five-year budgets for carbon?

Elliot Morley: The argument for five years—although it is not for me to make it—is that it aligns itself with the process of the UN framework convention on climate change. There may be an argument for having a three-year carbon budget, which would align itself with the comprehensive spending review, for example, so there is perhaps a debate to be had on the cycle, but I certainly believe that the budgeting approach is much better than simple annual targets, particularly bearing in mind the all-important annual report and assessment provided by an independent committee, as set out in the Bill.

Christopher Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that if there is an annual report, there must be a benchmark against which progress can be assessed? Would it not be better to make that explicit in an annual target rather than implicit in the work of the committee?

Elliot Morley: The problem is that there is some confusion among those who advocate annual targets. Even they recognise that in any one year it is possible to face circumstances that are outside the Government's control. There could, for example, be a dramatic shift in prices—we have seen that in recent years—whereby coal becomes much more attractive as a fuel than gas. The levers of control over that are extremely limited, in terms of what the Government can do. Some people say that it would be possible to make an allowance for that within an annual target. The difference between that and carbon budgeting has thus become very narrow.
	I would rather be a bit more honest about this, and recognise that carbon budgeting gives the kind of flexibility that any Government require and that it takes us towards the concepts of carbon markets, of caps and of budgeting for carbon within all our lifestyles, right down to personal lifestyles. I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) does not share my views about the radicalism of personal carbon allowances; I disagree with him on that matter. We should keep an open mind on how we approach this issue, as part of the all-important cultural shift in which we begin to think about carbon in the same way as we think about the price of electricity or gas. That shift has to come.
	The Government can provide a lead in that regard. The move towards smart metering is extremely good, for example. I have had a prototype smart meter fitted in my own home recently. By the sound of things, it is not as good as some of the meters that will be available in the next few years, but it nevertheless allows me to see exactly what my real-time electricity use is, and I have taken steps to reduce that as a result.
	I also welcome the extra money for building in high sustainability and low carbon to such programmes as building schools for the future. I am keen on that, not least because Scunthorpe is in the current wave for that programme, involving a £74 million programme of new schools and refurbishments. What better opportunity could there be not only to build in standards for low carbon but to use the results as a teaching tool, so that the pupils can see real-time read-outs of renewable power use and understand the value of passive heating and ventilation? Those are the kinds of standards that can be built in, and I welcome that. I am pleased that the Government have seized the opportunity to do it.
	Government procurement, too, is a powerful tool. I know that this subject has been examined, but we are only scratching the surface. We could make a lot more progress through the power of Government procurement, and also local government procurement, which is not used as it should be in this context.
	I agree with some of the points that have been made about energy companies becoming providers of energy services rather than simply selling energy; that change must happen. I should like to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that renewable energy certificates are among the most successful vehicles for the encouragement of renewables. They have worked well, and helped to take the use of renewable energy from a very low level towards achieving our targets.
	Given what Germany has done with feed-in tariffs, however, perhaps we should consider moving away from renewable energy certificates. We would have to do that over time, because people have invested in the scheme and we cannot undermine that investment, but I believe that we should be thinking about feed-in tariffs that depend on the level of technology involved. For example, if a power station is investing in carbon capture, which involves very expensive technology at the moment, feed-in tariffs for that power station should reflect that level of investment. In the domestic energy sphere, people who fit micro-power to their own homes should certainly get a better feed-in tariff than they do at the moment, although I welcome the Chancellor's proposal to make that income tax-free. He has sent out an important signal by doing that.
	I want to turn to the international issues that relate to climate change, because they will be the key factor. There is a lot that we can do, and we should lead by example. We should demonstrate that an advanced industrial country can reduce its emissions without affecting its gross domestic product. However, we shall have to persuade other countries to do more. We need to look for an agreement post-2012, at the end of the present Kyoto protocol, and we have an awfully long way to go in getting the necessary buy-in from a number of countries.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Eastleigh said about the range of 450 to 550 parts per million. We should be aiming for the bottom end of that range, because I worry about the impact that being at the top of the range would have on the global climate. Hon. Members will be aware, however, that a number of countries think that 550 parts per million is an unrealistic target. We still have a long way to go to convince countries that 550 would be straying into the area of dangerous climate change.
	One way of getting greater international support would be for the developed nations to place more emphasis on including aid packages to developing countries as part of a climate change agreement relating to adaptation. I would like to suggest to the Minister that we need new funding for that. We need to ally these issues to our aid programmes. I know that the Department for International Development has been giving a lot of thought to the matter, but we need new money on the table to get those agreements, particularly from the emerging economies. One way of doing that would be to ensure that money was available in the framework for clean energy and development, which came out of the Gleneagles action plan. That potentially powerful vehicle is being set up by the World Bank, and it needs our encouragement and support.
	It is important that carbon markets develop, because although proposals for smart taxation that encourages the use of new technologies, for lower emission vehicles and for offsetting the emissions from planes are all perfectly legitimate arguments, I worry that there is a potential for the prices involved to be rather elastic. For example, the fuel surcharges on air tickets range from about £30 to £60, before we add the increased departure tax. Those taxes have not had a great effect. Neither of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen has told the House what figure they would propose that would actually deter people from flying. I have never seen such a figure. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that, if there were a cap on emissions, the aviation sector would not be able to exceed that cap. That would be a much more effective way of ensuring that aircraft emissions did not rise, and that new technologies and the efficient use of existing aircraft were encouraged.
	Carbon markets are not yet mature—they are still developing—but there is an argument for taking a levy on each tonne of carbon traded. This has been discussed in Germany, and the figure of 10 cents has been suggested. That money could go into a fund that could boost adaptation funds. There would also be a strong element of social justice involved, because the money would come from the people producing the carbon and go to those who, because of their poverty, were not. Given the rate of growth of the markets, there is the potential for a huge fund that could be directed towards adaptation and new technologies. The proposal is not without its problems, but it is something to think about in terms of raising large sums of money that could make a real difference. It could encourage adaptation and the decarbonisation of our societies.
	I have a final point to put to the Minister, and it is one that I can make more easily than he can. If there were a lack of progress towards international carbon markets or, heaven forbid, towards a framework, post-2012, by some countries—some have legitimate claims because they are emerging economies; others should know better—would he give some thought to a concept that I regard as very much a second choice? If countries such as ours, or markets such as the European Union, are imposing the justifiable burdens and costs of carbon markets that encourage the use of new technology and innovation, could a carbon levy be imposed on imports from countries that are not part of any international agreement and are not taking action to control carbon? That levy could then be recycled back to the developing countries to support technology transfer and new technologies.
	I understand the controversy involved in moving into such an area. I know all about the kind of opposition that such a proposal would get from the World Trade Organisation, and I must make it clear that that is not something that I want to see. I want to see an effective outcome, post-2012, involving a proper and effective framework agreement that has been signed up to by the United Nations forum on climate change. If there is no progress, however, there should be no free riders. It saddens me to say so, but, in those circumstances, a carbon levy is something that we should consider.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I make a plea for brief contributions? There is a limited amount of time available for the rest of the debate.

Mark Hunter: The original title of this debate was "Action on climate change begins at home". The latter part of that title is the most important in relation to what we have discussed today, not least because of the pressing need to persuade the public and individuals that they can make a difference by changing their own habits and lifestyles at home.
	All of us, as politicians, should do more to help instil in the minds of the population the belief that their actions can and do affect levels of air, water and light pollution. We need to believe that ultimately, only the collective efforts of individuals at home, in their jobs, and perhaps even in their capacities as leaders of the community in business and in Government, will be able to tackle the problem of climate change and the devastating effects that we can already see it bringing.
	There are many fine examples of individuals taking the lead. I recently visited a gentleman in Cheadle Hulme, in my constituency, who had installed solar panels on his house to do his bit to help stop climate change, at considerable expense to himself. That was a fantastic initiative, which should be held up as an example to others. I was, however, appalled by what he told me about the lack of Government support for such schemes. The Government need to give individuals incentives to take "green" action.
	The fiasco of the low carbon building scheme, reported in recent months, only serves to prove that the Government are failing to keep up with the public demand for greener solutions to energy problems. In March the monthly capped grant for the scheme was allocated to householders in only 75 minutes, which clearly showed the Government's dismal failure to fund the scheme properly. With solar panels costing up to a possible £7,000, many households will simply not be able to afford to take the drastic action necessary to tackle global warming. Despite the promise from the Environment Secretary that householders would have better access to renewable energy funds, the low carbon building scheme effectively shut up shop from March until later this month. No wonder so many people are asking how on earth this is helping to tackle climate change.
	Buildings in the United Kingdom are responsible for nearly half our total carbon emissions, yet the Government still fail to create incentives for people to improve the carbon footprints of their own homes. Not only do we need tough new standards to be set for new build; we need to provide incentives for home owners to improve older properties by installing insulation and other energy-saving devices. The Liberal Democrats' energy mortgage policy would deal with the problem of cost by lending home owners money for the initial outlay, which could then be paid back in money saved from lower energy bills.
	Doorstep recycling is yet another example of the way in which changing patterns of public behaviour can be seen to have a real effect on climate change and the environment. My own council, Stockport—where, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats increased their majority last Thursday at the expense of the Conservatives—has a better recycling record than any other metropolitan borough council in the country, with 33 per cent. of all household waste now being recycled, but even there we know that we can and must improve. When the council rolled out its pioneering "green waste" wheelie bin programme it was flooded with requests from residents asking for the bins, and struggled to keep up with the public demand. With its excellent environmental record, Stockport puts many other local authorities to shame.
	Recycling is a low-cost option for the public, and a simple way in which individuals can make a difference to climate change. Local government has a vital leadership role to play in environmental issues and should be doing its utmost to encourage recycling and other environmentally conscious behaviour, but, it can do that only with the active support and encouragement of central Government. The Government may have made a start, but they need to do much, much more if they are to deliver on their promises.

Sharon Hodgson: I think Labour Members can all agree that we are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for choosing to highlight the Government's ongoing work in combating climate change.
	I do not believe anyone would take issue with the idea that the fight against climate change, like charity, must begin at home. Much has been made of the small changes that we can all make to our lifestyles, which when added together should make an enormous difference. However, we must remember that "home" is not just something that belongs to the individual or the private person. New homes that are not yet occupied are an important consideration. Companies have their own homes, perhaps even several homes across the country, and we as Members of Parliament have our own home here in the House of Commons. I want to spend a few minutes examining what is being done, and in some cases what needs to be done, in all those different homes across the country.
	I expect that all hon. Members have heard a fair few "light bulb" jokes in their time, but I doubt that anyone has heard the one that asks, "How many MPs does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer, on this occasion, is 77—the number of Members who signed my early-day motion 947, which called for a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs.
	Some of my constituents suggested to me that I was doing my patch a disservice, as the first light bulb was invented in Gateshead, in my constituency, by Joseph Swan, who was born in Sunderland, another part of my constituency. For me, however, that proves that both Gateshead and Sunderland have been at the forefront of the energy agenda in the past, and I have every faith that they will continue to be so in the future.
	I would not presume to claim that what happened next was an immediate response to my early-day motion, but needless to say I was delighted when the Chancellor announced that the sale of old-fashioned energy-hungry light bulbs would be phased out by 2011. That represents a clear commitment from the Government to lead people in the right direction, and to enable all of us to make the small changes that will deliver a big difference.
	I know from spending time in my constituency that although the message is getting through, there remain significant obstacles for the Government to tackle. It is all very well preaching from our parliamentary pulpits, but we must remember that for families who are surviving on low incomes, pursuing a green lifestyle carries a sometimes unsustainable cost. The Government have announced that from next year, every household will be able to monitor the amount of energy being used at any given time. That is exactly the sort of simple innovation that should be supported: such aid will help people to stop wasting not only energy but money, and will therefore be especially useful in low-income areas.
	The Warm Front scheme forms a vital part of the Government's energy efficiency commitment, and will have provided consumers with 40 million bulbs by 2008. I know that the Government are also working hard at European Union level to try to find a way of reducing VAT on energy-efficient goods such as low-energy light bulbs. I hope that, with the support of Members in all parts of the House, we shall be able to find a solution that will make energy efficiency affordable for all.
	We do not want to see the development of carbon inequalities, especially if they closely reflect income inequalities. If we cut carbon costs, we must ensure that everyone can meet their own efficiency targets. The Liberal Democrats do not seem to have solutions to that problem. Prescribing top-down standards, targets and subsidies such as energy mortgages will only lead to additional costs being passed on indiscriminately to consumers, and that will again hit the poorest hardest.
	It is clear that the Government are committed to leading the field across the world in combating climate change. In fact, many other countries are already having to play catch-up, and I suppose it is no surprise that Opposition parties find themselves having to do the same.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is not just individuals and families who have homes. Businesses throughout the United Kingdom have several hundred thousand homes of their own. It is welcome that, on the whole, United Kingdom business is accepting that it must take responsibility for the changes that are taking place, and adjust its own role to accommodate that. Although EU carbon emissions trading is merely in its infancy, it is testimony to the commitment of our Government that the UK is—again—at the forefront of the scheme and continues to set an example of best practice to the rest of the EU.
	No matter how much we recycle, for the time being at least, no home can be without the common dustbin. I never knew that dustbins could be a hot topic of conversation, but refuse collection was one of the biggest issues on the nation's doorsteps during the last few weeks and months. Dealing properly with our rubbish is causing increasing logistical problems, and I can certainly sympathise with those who think that a fortnightly rubbish collection is not sufficient to remove the refuse produced during that period by, for instance, a family of five. Both my local Labour-led councils are evaluating ways in which they can maximise recycling across their two metropolitan boroughs. They will find that task much easier thanks to the draft Climate Change Bill, which locks into statute changes that will enable Britain to adapt with sufficient flexibility to the challenges that lie ahead.
	I agree strongly with one aspect of the Liberal Democrat motion. We have already established that the challenge of combating climate change begins at home, and it is imperative that we as elected representatives make sure that our own house is in order. We must take steps to ensure that Parliament is as energy-efficient as possible. Ideally, it will—like all new homes—be carbon-neutral within the next decade. A raft of possible changes could be made. I am told that last Christmas, after I had tabled parliamentary questions, the House authorities used low-energy bulbs to light the Christmas trees. From memory, I think that that saved about £4,000. Although that is laudable, I am sure that we all agree that combating climate change is for life and not just for Christmas. Targets are in place to cut Government emissions by more than 30 per cent. before 2020, but I believe that we need to act with greater urgency. This issue can transcend party boundaries, and I am in no doubt that it would do the world of good for the Houses of Parliament to lead by example. By doing so, we can avoid having a "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude.
	Of course I will not support the motion, despite the fact that much of it appears to support Government positions. However, I hope that our debate on what is undeniably one of the supremely important issues of our time will inspire us all to go home to our constituencies and prepare to save power, and that that in turn will combat climate change.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) for picking this subject for debate on behalf of his party. I was a little disappointed by some of his comments at the start of his speech about the Conservatives in the European Parliament. Having been a colleague of his for five years, I recall working closely with the Liberal Democrats and their group in the European Parliament putting together a number of compromises, which would have been undermined by some of the luddite policies that the Green parties tended to promote there. However, I shall forgive him and put his remarks down to him still smarting at the "vote blue, go green" phenomenon that was seen to such a great extent around the country on Thursday.
	Any action plan to curb our carbon emissions must take account of how green some new technologies being touted as panaceas really are. Solar panels are often touted as the answer. Although water-heating panels can make some contribution, photovoltaic cells are less difficult to justify from an environmental point of view. Toward the end of last year, I was talking to one of the founders of Greenpeace and he said that although his house is in New Mexico the photovoltaics on the roof did not manage to produce all the energy needed for that house. Although Scarborough is renowned for its sunny climate—especially during the holiday season—its sunshine levels are nowhere near as high as those of New Mexico.
	The Minister mentioned that he will be flying to New York and that he will offset the carbon, but we need to look carefully at some carbon offsetting schemes. Tree planting would only really count if those trees were allowed to become fossils. If they merely rotted down and in due course the CO2 was liberated again, that would not be genuine carbon offsetting. Simple measures such as installing insulation, turning off the standby function on one's video recorder, and turning down the thermostat in one's house are likely to have a greater effect.
	Yorkshire has a number of power stations that burn renewable fuels. Despite a hesitant start, we also have farmers in Yorkshire planting willow coppice, as well as elephant grass or miscanthus. That can be easily justified as making a contribution. However, I am less convinced of the environmental or even the economic advantages of importing olive pressings from north Africa to burn in power stations in Yorkshire, which is happening at present.
	The European Union has set a target of 5.75 per cent. for biofuels in transportation by 2010. Germany and France are confident that they will reach that target early, and bioethanol and biodiesel are being promoted there. There is tremendous potential within the EU to produce those fuels, given that 10 per cent. of our arable land is currently in set-aside, but we must look at the environmental impact of taking land out of set-aside. I and many other farmers have entered into the entry level scheme. That will be fairly easy to reverse, but the environmental improvements from it are, perhaps, less tangible than those of higher level schemes. However, it will be much more difficult to take land out of those environmental schemes, and although we will produce energy from that land there will be an environmental fallout.
	We also have a lot of waste oil in the EU, which is used for cooking chips and in catering. Previously, that oil was used as animal feed so it had a positive value. Sadly, since the implementation of an animal by-products directive such oil can no longer be used for animal feed. We need better incentives to stop cooks and chefs pouring oil down the drain and to ensure that it can go into making biofuel.
	My family is trying to make some impact. I have a green cemetery, which I hope cuts down emissions from crematoria. I have also entered into a biofuel contract. Sadly, however, there is no biodiesel plant in the UK. Somewhat bizarrely, my 45 acres of oilseed rape will not go for biodiesel but will be entered in a complex offset scheme with German crushers. My rape will not actually go to Germany, but rape in Germany will be used for biofuel and be offset against mine. It is likely that my rape will not be processed for fuel in Hull or Erith in Kent, but that rape that is offset against mine will be processed by ADM in Hamburg or Bunge in Mannheim. Germany has taken the lead in this area because it has given capital grants and fuel rebates to kick-start the technology.
	In the UK, we have the energy aid scheme—a subsidy to encourage farmers to produce biofuels. Of the €45 per hectare available, €22.5 goes to the crusher. The problem that we in the UK have is that we have signed up to the highest level of modulation. As a result, 17 per cent. of the aid that is meant to promote biofuels is being clawed back by the Government. To detach the energy aid scheme from modulation would be a good way of promoting biofuel in the UK. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.
	Biofuels are being promoted throughout the world. Recently, there were riots in Mexico City, with people complaining that the price of their staple, maize-based diet had increased because of maize being turned into ethanol in the United States of America. In terms of the overall energy balance of producing ethanol from maize, there is merely a 13 per cent. reduction in CO2 after account is taken of factors such as the fuel used in the fertiliser, the cultivation and the transport and processing. That is a fairly minor increase. For biodiesel, various figures have been touted about —50 per cent. energy gain is one figure that I have heard. That does not take into account the non-direct CO2 produced. For example, if my tractor driver takes a holiday abroad and flies to get there, that is not included in the figures on the impact.
	Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from places such as Brazil. Rain forests have been cut down to produce sugar and soya beans. In south-east Asia, oil palms are being grown, which is contributing to the destruction of the orang-utans' habitat. Many of the commodities being used to produce biofuels are commodities that can also be used as food. I recently read that a Range Rover's tank of ethanol would be equivalent to the amount of food consumed by a person in a year. Whenever there are chaotic famines around the world, we are able to send food aid, but that might not be the case in the future as more of the arable land in the developed and developing world is turned over to biofuel production and we do not have the grain surplus to send to aid third-world countries.
	What are the answers? First, we need a good eco-audit of biofuels. We do not want to find that the biodiesel that we use in our cars is deforestation diesel, so we need to consider the energy balance. Secondly, we need to examine more closely technologies that utilise the cellulose and lignin in straw and waste products for which we currently have no use. More emphasis on such research is necessary. Thirdly, we need to utilise that tremendous resource in the EU of unproductive set-aside land. If we can bring that into production in a way that does not damage other environmental concerns, that will be good. We should stop grabbing the headlines, and start embracing some of the emerging science that can deliver the type of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we all want.

Andrew Miller: I disagree on a couple of points with Opposition Members who have spoken, although there is a huge amount of agreement across the House, which is good. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) reeled off a series of alleged cuts in science investment. I am sure that he would acknowledge that a substantial increase in all science investment—including on climate change—has taken place under this Government. As for the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), I loved the little twist of the blues going green. I wonder, however, whether he has made the "polluter pays" argument to a gentleman whom I met at the beginning of the fuel protest in my constituency, and who now happens to be a Conservative Welsh Assembly Member. He certainly did not believe in blues going green; perhaps the message has not yet fully got across to the Conservative party.
	My first point is on national security, which has not been mentioned in the debate. Fresh water, rising sea levels and uncertainty of food supply raise significant national and international security issues, which will help to drive forward this important debate. It is no coincidence that some of the best scientists and experts in the field are now lecturing at the Royal College of Defence Studies, and that people from 40 nations, including Members of the House who have had the opportunity to participate in its fabulous course, have engaged in discussion there of the effect on security over a number of years. That needs to be promoted more strongly. I have made that point to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I make the same point to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as it is critical that all Government Departments engage with that group of experts in that international forum. Britain undoubtedly has a lead there; otherwise, the 40 nations, including the United States, who send senior personnel to study at the college would not do so.
	My second point is about planning, on which the hon. Member for Eastleigh made several important points. Energy efficiency certificates were discussed earlier in relation to the home information packs programme. I believe not only that the principle of HIPs will drive down the buying and selling costs of property—the only siren voices against it are the vested interests represented in different parts of the high street—but that it will ultimately put net downward pressure on house sales. It is important, however, that we drive forward the concept of energy efficiency certificates with some vigour.
	The planning cycle also needs to include real vision on how we deal with future sustainable homes. That is not just about sticking a windmill on the top of some bijou residence in Notting Hill; it is about serious strategic planning to change our approach to living. With imaginative planning, sustainable energy manufacturing could take place within small rural communities.

David Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on that subject. Does he therefore agree with the Bill brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), which would allow local authorities to set higher standards with regard to energy efficiency in local planning than central Government are setting?

Andrew Miller: The principle of devolving the responsibility has some merit, but leadership from the top is also needed, because imaginative work will be required in respect of some sacred cows such as the green belt. I do not mean that we will build over the whole green belt in my constituency, but imagination should be applied to the question of how some of those rural communities can become more sustainable through the growing of crops and use of solar and wind energy.
	That leads me to my third point, which is on energy. A couple of Members, including the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, appeared to take an anti-nuclear stance. Nuclear power cannot solve all the problems—far from it. Simple arithmetic, however, shows that it is impossible to ignore the nuclear cycle. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will contemplate that carefully. The economic growth of China and India alone will wipe out any potential gains from Kyoto, so our energy policy will—

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Miller: No. The hon. Gentleman wants 15 minutes to wind up, so he can use some of that time.
	Our energy policy will have to reflect the need for a properly balanced energy structure that provides for a base load. To be carbon-free, part of that base load must be nuclear, whether we like it or not.
	My final point is on public understanding, which we take for granted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we have tended to consider pound sterling values and not carbon values. I last used my log tables when I needed to calculate the thermal efficiency of the walls in my house in order to assess which radiators to install. That calculation was done on the basis of pounds sterling, not tonnes of carbon. With hindsight, that was the wrong calculation to use. We need to educate people to think in a different way. To a certain extent, we are succeeding in recycling and, in some respects, in the procurement of vehicles. I am told by dealers that people are now asking what the carbon emissions of vehicles are. Education is working, and we need to drive that forward.
	To conclude, I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that greater co-ordination across Government Departments is needed to cover almost every aspect of the Government's activities. Her Majesty's Government should be commended, however, for their bold position and leadership role throughout the world.

Martin Horwood: Members will be pleased with the overall tone of this debate, which has demonstrated a great deal of agreement on the direction of travel that we should all be going in, even if we cannot all agree on whether we should indulge wealthy urban 4x4 owners in their chosen mode of transport.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) opened the debate in a spirit of friendly competition by reminding us that the only Conservative national election manifesto yet produced under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) scored zero out of 10 for green initiatives, according to Friends of the Earth. My hon. Friend also rightly warned us against Government complacency and the drift in Government policy, which Conservative Members also mentioned, toward the toleration of 550 parts per million as an acceptable carbon dioxide concentration target. The Stern report had very cautionary words to say about that, although in a sense, that report has been part of the problem in tolerating that figure.
	Stern pointed out that according to the Hadley Centre's assessment, a worldwide figure of 550 ppm gives rise to a 69 per cent. probability of exceeding 3C of global warming. Elsewhere in the report, Sir Nicholas pointed out the possible consequences of such an increase, such as the onset of collapse of part or all of the Amazonian rain forest, many species facing extinction, rising intensity of storms, and forest fires, droughts, flooding and heatwaves. Those dramatic and apocalyptic consequences will begin to kick in quite fast. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, given the feedback mechanisms that are liable to accelerate global warming, we might be in an uncontrollable situation much earlier than we thought. I caution the Government to move away from the idea that 550 ppm is an acceptable target; it is in fact an extremely high-risk one.
	What we need is ambition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, we need to give the UK first-mover advantage and to bring real urgency to all Government Departments. We need an annual action plan and a dedicated Cabinet Committee to bring together the worthy ambitions often heard from DEFRA Ministers—I count the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as a past distinguished example—but which often do not seem to translate to other Departments. The Treasury certainly failed to introduce anything particularly convincing in the recent Budget.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government, moreover, has failed to promote energy efficiency to anything like the time scale necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) pointed out, it talked out a Bill that would have guaranteed the ability of local councils to set energy efficiency and microgeneration standards higher than the national standard. That was a shameful performance; the DCLG allowed its control-freak tendencies to get the better of its green instincts. We have seen nothing from it as imaginative as the warm homes package that we Liberal Democrats suggested —[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but I should like to see something equally imaginative from the DCLG; however, nothing has been forthcoming. Ours is a really radical proposal that would release funds over a long period, guarantee householders lower bills and release the funds required to tackle the energy efficiency of existing housing stock, as well as new homes. That policy area badly needs to be addressed.
	Nor have we seen anything from the Department for Transport that really addresses the problems associated with vehicle excise duty and the expansion of aviation. We still perhaps face the toleration of extra runways at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow airports, even though—in addition to the taxation measures that we have debated today—the constraint of supply of aviation spaces is another way to limit aviation's growth.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also emphasised the important role of the public sector. We Liberal Democrats suggest using the decent homes standard as a vehicle to offer a green revolution to the least well-off in our society—as well as to the homeowners whom we often talk about in these debates—by, for instance, promoting community renewable energy on a much larger scale.
	The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment replied to my hon. Friend by claiming that there was great cross-party consensus on the urgency of this issue. Some of the initiatives that he described we have supported and would indeed welcome. I would certainly welcome the free household smart meter displays that the Minister appeared to commit to in his speech, but it is therefore a mystery as to why he will not commit to a more ambitious target in the Climate Change Bill. Why is he still talking about including a target of only a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050, given that he said in his own speech that the Government were ready for 70 per cent? We Liberal Democrats consider 80 per cent. or even higher to be the realistic and necessary target.

Barry Gardiner: indicated dissent.

Martin Horwood: The Minister shakes his head. I will happily give way if he wants to explain why the target in the Bill is so low.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is unfortunate and puerile to keep on making that sort of attack. He knows full well that the Bill stipulates that the target is at least 60 per cent.; that it is for CO2, not greenhouse gases; and that when it translates into parts per million of greenhouse gas emissions, it is substantially higher than 60 per cent. He is also aware that according to part 1 of the Bill, it is open to the Secretary of State to amend the target in the light of science, as scientific knowledge progresses. I hope that that will put an end to this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must not anticipate his own winding-up speech.

Martin Horwood: I am very grateful for the Minister's lengthy intervention. When I was in business, a target was a high point that one aimed for, not the lowest that one thought achievable. If what he says is right, I see no reason why he would not accept an amendment in Committee to increase the figure to at least 80 per cent.
	The truth is that there is too much complacency in government. As Sir Nicholas Stern makes clear, the Government's repeated claim to be meeting their Kyoto target on overall greenhouse gases is a bit of a myth. Page 204 of the Stern report attributes the historic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the UK to the dash for gas. The real trend now is rather more worrying. An examination of CO2 emissions, rather than of the basket of greenhouse gases, shows that the Government's record since taking office is an increase of 2.4 per cent. If we compare the provisional figures for 2006 with those for 2002, the trend since 2002 is an increase in CO2 emissions of 3.3 per cent., and an increase of 0.6 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions as a whole. We have to accept that the figures on which the Government are working are inadequate, and that in continuing to claim that they are on course to meet the Kyoto targets, they are displaying worrying complacency. In a sense, they are fiddling while Rome burns—along with, potentially, the rest of us.
	There were some interesting initiatives. I hope that the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will make available to his own Department the carbon calculator that he referred to. A recent report by the National Audit Office on the Government estate states:
	"There is widespread failure to meet targets for sustainable construction and refurbishment...Departments and agencies are not assessing the environmental sustainability of projects despite instructions to do so...Departments and agencies are failing to achieve the required assessment ratings...Eighty per cent of projects would fail to meet the required environmental assessment standards".
	It is therefore no wonder that, as other Members have pointed out, DEFRA's own record for its own estate shows an increase in carbon emissions and an 11 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency. The Minister said that that is because it is in a transitional stage—aren't we all?—but the transition that the Government must make is from carbon complacency to urgent action. That attitude is typified in the briefing given to the Joint Committee on the Climate Change Bill. I should say at this point that we Liberal Democrats would not have bothered with that stage; the more urgent need is to get a Bill before this House. However, the Government suggested that the Joint Committee address the briefing, which asked what the main aims and purposes of the Bill should be and why it is needed. I thought that we had got beyond the stage of worrying about why the Bill is needed; surely we all know the answer to that by now. We need to inject a much greater degree of urgency.
	The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) praised both the Prime Minister and Mrs. Thatcher, obviously two of his political role models. Mrs. Thatcher is a warning from history. Twenty years ago, she called the Conservatives the real friends of the earth and raised, in her own way, green issues high up the agenda, just as the right hon. Member for Witney is doing at the moment. However, in the subsequent 20 years, Governments of both colours have presided over spiralling emissions, a poverty of investment in renewable energy, increasing car use and increased aviation.

Gregory Barker: For the record, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what happened to carbon emissions under the last Conservative Government from 1992 to 1997?

Martin Horwood: The problem is the same as the Government have had with the Kyoto targets, because other factors are at play. In that case, it was the Conservative Government's mismanagement of the economy and the recession. Russia has achieved one of the best carbon reductions of any European country, for similar reasons. The hon. Gentleman lamented the lack of cross-party agreement and specifically mentioned transport and the quality of life commission that is working on the issue. I tried to look up the Conservatives' quality of life commission's policies on transport before the debate. They have obviously spent a lot of time on the website, which is very beautiful with pictures of green grass. One can find the introduction and the terms of reference, but the policy is a little thin. There are three paragraphs—

Gregory Barker: That could possibly be because we do not report until the summer.

Martin Horwood: So there are no actual policies. It is difficult to maintain a cross-party consensus on policy because the Conservative party does not actually have any. The hon. Gentleman also accused us of begrudging people expensive cars. We do not, but we begrudge them the most polluting cars and will reward those who have the least polluting cars. We have specifically agreed a policy of raising green taxes to change behaviour and to give tax breaks to the least well off with the proceeds.
	I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe, and I agree with some of his remarks about Government and local government procurement and the idea of feed-in tariffs as a more useful policy tool. However, he strangely defended five-year targets on the basis that they give more flexibility to Government, but that is the fundamental problem with them. They give far too much flexibility and apply too little pressure. How are we to judge the performance of the Government at the next general election when the five-year target will be on the other side of it? If voters cannot judge that performance, how can we expect human politicians to take the actions necessary?
	The right hon. Gentleman also raised another important issue, which is the need to address those nations that do not take part in the Kyoto, or even the post-Kyoto, process. That point was also raised by Sir Nicholas Stern. It is interesting to note the remarks by Nicolas Sarkozy, who has just been elected President of France. He may be a soul mate for the new Labour leadership. He said of the US:
	"I want to tell them that France will always be by their side when they need it, but I also want to tell them that friendship means accepting that your friends may think differently and that a great nation such as the United States has a duty not to put obstacles in the way of the fight against global warming, but on the contrary to take the lead in this fight, because what is at stake is the fate of humanity as a whole."
	That is the kind of constructive but critical approach that allies need to take. I fear that this Government have sometimes taken too relaxed an approach to the White House and its attitude to global warming.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) combined green idealism with a practical grasp of the problems associated with the low carbon buildings programme, which he rightly described as a fiasco and which is still suspended. He paid tribute to the pioneering work of Stockport Liberal Democrat council and its record on recycling, which I happily applaud.
	The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) called for a ban on incandescent light bulbs and I would be happy to support that in due course. She appeared to think that green mortgages were likely to prove an arbitrary cost to consumers, but the whole point of the warm homes package that we propose is that it will save consumers money. It would not work otherwise on a voluntary basis.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) spoke from great experience about biofuels, and the virtues of miscanthus and other biofuels that are actually energy efficient and lead to a substantial reduction in global warming if used. That underlines the need for the Government to get on with a proper certification scheme, so that we can tell the difference between those biofuels that are making a contribution to fighting global warming and those that are not.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) talked about security of supply. It is true that green generation is also often secure. It is much more difficult to bomb a tidal array or 1,000 microgeneration sites than it is to bomb a nuclear power station. He also criticised China, as he appeared to believe that it is outside the Kyoto framework, but it is not. In some ways, the Chinese Government have made radical moves towards carbon neutrality in the community at Dongtan.
	The Liberal Democrats have set out a radical and coherent plan. We want to see powerful, long-term incentives for renewable energy; a green tax switch; annual targets for CO2 reduction; a tax on flights, not people; no new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted in order to constrain the supply of aviation; smaller, more efficient cars paying much less in excise duty than urban 4x4s; green mortgages; greener homes sooner; more community heat and power; and more pressure on the White House. We want clear green policies, not blue sky waffle or Brown fudge.

Barry Gardiner: In the global battle to combat climate change, no Government have done more than this Labour Government, both domestically and internationally, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or raise the level of international consensus that is required if we are to hold anthropogenic climate change below 2°C. I say that not as a complacent boast, but as a warning to the world. If we who are acknowledged to lead internationally have still so much more to do to change our domestic consumption of energy—and we have—those nations which have so far failed to address climate change may find that the distance they have to travel cannot be covered in the time that the planet is prepared to allow them.
	Such a mistake is more than bad timing, it is injustice—injustice between the generations and a shameful disregard for the security and future well-being of our children. It is injustice too in that it is we in the developed world who have contributed most to the current 430 ppm concentration of CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere, but it is those living in the developing world who stand to lose most should those concentrations rise to push temperatures up by more than 2°. The poorest people in the world will suffer most, as Africa loses 4 per cent. of its GDP for every 1° rise in temperature; as India loses 17 per cent. of its wheat yield in tropical areas for the 2°( )rise in temperature predicted above 450 ppm; and as the populations of China, India and south-east Asia experience drought because the seven great river systems originating in the glacial plateau of the Himalayas run dry. Within the next half century, 40 per cent. of the world's population could face the loss of half of all their drinking water.
	It is because of the injustice of that greater threat to the livelihood of the poor that we have developed the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities for all countries. Developed nations, who bear greater responsibility for the problem, must bear a greater share of the costs of tackling it. Let us all hope that that is a principle to which the planet's richest country will soon subscribe.
	It used to be thought that there was an environment agenda and a development agenda, both good but separate. Climate change has taught us above all that that is a lie. The environment and the development agenda are one, indivisible. Climate change has taught us that the proper name for development without sustainability is extinction.

Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give way?

Barry Gardiner: I would like to do so, but I cannot, given the plethora of responses that I need to make to points raised in the debate. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was here for the entirety of it.
	The Environmental Audit Committee did this House a great service when it produced its report on the millennium ecosystems assessment. It highlighted the degradation of whole ecosystems. Throughout the entire history of life on our planet, species extinction has occurred at the rate of one every 1,000 years. That was until now. During the past few hundred years, the rate has accelerated to the extent that we lose one species each and every year. Fluctuations in climate that evolution could accommodate when they happened over millennia now happen so fast that species cannot adapt. The result is the loss of biodiversity and habitat that provide the very ecosystem services on which we as a species depend.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget earlier this year a new fund worth £800 million over three years to support development and poverty reduction through environmental protection, and to help developing countries respond to climate change. The fund will be governed jointly by my Department and the Department for International Development. The first £50 million of the environmental transformation has been earmarked for a multilateral fund to reduce unsustainable deforestation in the Congo basin.
	The fund will not divert money away from our existing spending on overseas development. It is additional to current aid and will be used to fund development activities with local as well as global benefits.
	The proposed title of this debate was "Action on Climate Change begins at Home". Some Opposition Members have tried to present a false dichotomy between domestic policy and international action, but they have lacked either understanding or vision, or both. Some have made narrow party attacks, as cheap as they were wrong. In truth, we have but one, fragile home—this planet. The Government must act to ensure that four things are done domestically to tackle emissions. We must reduce demand for energy, improve efficiency, use lower-carbon technologies, and tackle non-energy emissions from waste, agriculture and land use.
	We are doing all that in statute, in the most detailed and comprehensive way ever attempted by any Government. The Climate Change Bill provides the framework, and is the start, rather than the end, of this Government's ambitions. We will modify and improve the targets and methods as the science and the economics change.
	Internationally, we are working towards the Bali conference at the end of this year, at which the UN framework convention on climate change needs to begin negotiating the elements of a long-term framework after 2012. We are acutely aware that we must reach agreement by 2009, at the latest, if we are to avoid a gap between the first Kyoto period and the second.
	It was action by this Government in 2005 placing climate change at the centre of the G8 agenda at Gleneagles that broke through the stalemate that had developed around Kyoto. The G8 summit at Heiligendamm in June will continue the Gleneagles initiative by trying to secure a package of measures that could be used to achieve consensus at Bali.
	In Paris earlier this year, the intergovernmental panel on climate change established the scientific argument for anthropogenic climate change beyond doubt. Last week in Thailand scientists went further than ever before in quantifying the effects, and last year's Stern report commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the economic basis for action. At Bali, the UK would wish the UNFCCC to agree long-term stabilisation goals. In our view, that means securing a CO2 equivalent of no greater than 550 parts per million, and an average global temperature rise no greater than 2°.
	I turn now to some of the issues raised in the debate. The energy standards for new homes in England and Wales have been raised steadily, by about 40 per cent. from pre-2002 levels and by 70 per cent. from pre-1990 levels. A new home now uses about a quarter of the average energy for space heating. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced the Government's proposal for further improvements in 2010 and 2013, with the aim of reaching zero carbon by 2016. The new buildings will be energy efficient and highly insulated, drawing their energy from zero or low-carbon technologies and therefore producing no net carbon emissions from all energy use over the course of a year. The buildings will help to reduce carbon emissions as well as lowering fuel bills for households.
	That is a very ambitious goal, and the Government have taken several steps to help the industry prepare to deliver the transition. We have published the code for sustainable homes, which will assess new homes against a six-level star rating, giving homeowners better information about the sustainability of their homes. From April 2008, we are minded that all new homes should be required to have the mandatory code rating, indicating whether they have been assessed and their home's performance against the code. In this year's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that from October this year all new homes that reach the zero carbon level will be exempt from stamp duty up to a maximum of £15,000.
	The Government have set up a zero carbon 2016 taskforce and are also working with English Partnerships to deliver a carbon challenge, to encourage developers to raise design and construction standards to deliver high-quality zero and near-zero carbon communities that are both affordable and sustainable.
	We recognise that tackling new homes is only part of the picture. The Government also have an ambitious programme to improve the energy performance of existing homes. Building regulations apply to replacement boilers and windows. Around 70 per cent. of a home's energy use is for heating and hot water, so the requirement for all replacement boilers to be the most efficient condensing type will have a huge impact as the stock is replaced.
	Under the energy efficiency commitment, energy suppliers are making substantial investment in consumers' homes. We think that the current phase of the EEC will deliver more than £1 billion of investment, which will more than double under the EEC's third phase that starts next year. The Warm Front programme targets the fuel poor, with more than £800 million being invested in the current spending period. The decent homes programme is also delivering real improvements in the energy standards of social housing. Energy companies will be required to give customers real-time energy displays on demand from January 2008, enabling consumers to have better information about their home's electricity consumption.
	I want to pay tribute to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). His contribution was as informed and imaginative as we would expect, and it proposed real solutions to the problems that we face. Like him, I do not want the carbon tax on imports to ensure no free riders, but we are working to ensure the international consensus that we both desire and which will mean that such a tax would be unnecessary after 2012. However, it was characteristic of my right hon. Friend to raise such an interesting, imaginative and technical point.
	My right hon. Friend also talked about feed-in tariffs. He may know that energy suppliers are developing a scheme to reward household microgeneration better. The Government have said that they will impose such a scheme if they are not satisfied with the outcome of the development by suppliers. Feed-in tariffs are a recognised form of renewable support, but they represent an approach that is fundamentally different from the UK's market-based renewables obligation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) alluded to her early-day motion about outlawing incandescent light bulbs. I congratulate her on the success of her campaign, and even more I welcome her realism in warning about the effects of tackling climate change on some of the poorest people in our society, and about the disproportionate amount of their resources that goes to heating and basic insulation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) rightly talked about climate change as a security issue. There will be significant impacts as a result of climate change, even if we take urgent action to mitigate the effects. That is why the Government are taking the lead in adaptation. The welfare, economic and environmental outcomes between now and the middle of the century will depend on our ability to adapt to the impact of climate change, as my hon. Friend suggested.
	The most significant phrase in the motion is
	"offset by other tax cuts".
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh has made it clear in his recent speeches what those other tax cuts would be and where they would occur: 2p off income tax and 2 million low earners out of tax altogether. To give that commitment there has to be an element of certainty. To achieve that certainty the green taxes have to keep rolling into the Exchequer. To keep the revenues rolling in people have to keep doing the polluting activity that generates the tax income. The perverse message put out by the Liberal Democrats is that their policy undermines itself: go green and force taxes up. Green taxes should be used to change public behaviour, not to provide alternative sources of core Government revenue.
	It is a fact that climate change is an international problem. It is a fact that 98 per cent. of emissions arise in the international community outside the UK. It seems pretty clear to all but a party of political dinosaurs that if we are to avoid the same fate as the dinosaurs we must focus on solutions that can be agreed by the international community, and not just on action in the domestic policy arena. That is why, alongside the UNFCCC and the Gleneagles dialogue, the Government have concluded in the past year bilateral partnerships with China on clean coal and with Brazil, Mozambique and South Africa on biofuels. We have agreed clean energy investment with India and co-operation with Norway on carbon capture and storage.
	Domestic policy initiatives give us the moral basis to provide strong international leadership but they address only a fraction of the 2 per cent. of global emissions produced by the UK. We are the generation of politicians to whom has fallen the greatest political and moral challenge since the abolition of slavery 200 years ago. I welcome that opportunity and acknowledge the deep responsibility it places on us all.
	Our responsibility is to work together, setting aside narrow party faction to ensure that the UK realises its domestic targets by 2020 and 2050. More than that, we have a responsibility to engage the world community, to make it seize the problem and to encourage, cajole, caution, facilitate and inspire all the nations that share our true and only home—this planet—to rise to the challenge together.
	 Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 59, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes publication of the draft Climate Change Bill, which will make the UK the first country in the world to establish a long term legal framework for managing the transition to a low carbon economy, setting ambitious binding targets to cut carbon emissions by 26 to 32 per cent. from the 1990 level by 2020 and at least 60 per cent. by 2050, which can be revised in light of significant developments in international policy and climate science, and establishing an independent Committee on Climate Change to advise on setting statutory five year carbon budgets and to report to Parliament annually on progress; further welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy and the proposals in the energy review to cut carbon emissions by up to a further 25 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020; recognises that home energy use for heating, lighting and appliances accounts for more than a quarter of domestic UK carbon emissions; applauds the Government's proposals to improve building standards so that from 2016 all new housing developments must be zero carbon; recognises the Government's commitment to improving the energy efficiency of existing homes and tackling fuel poverty through Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment; welcomes the Budget 2007 report statement that by the end of the next decade all householders will have been offered help to introduce energy efficiency measures; and looks forward to further development of policies in this area.

Mental Health Services

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Norman Lamb: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned that despite mental illness affecting one in six adults in the UK the proportion of NHS spending allocated to mental health has decreased in the last 10 years, despite the growing burden on the disability benefit system and criminal justice system of dealing with mental illness; recognises that historic under-funding of mental health services has been exacerbated by the Government's top-slicing of budgets in order to bring the NHS out of deficit; notes the damaging impact that this has had on providing access to mental health services, with particular regard to the unacceptably poor state of many acute mental health wards in providing appropriate settings for the treatment of children and young people, addressing the race inequalities in the mental health system and improving patient safety through, for example, the eradication of mixed sex wards; further notes the warning in last year's Health Select Committee Report on NHS deficits that cuts in mental health services are simply unacceptable; calls on the Government to deliver on its promise to ensure that trusts whose budgets were top-sliced in the last financial year will get their money back this year and to take active steps to ensure that within each health economy mental health trusts receive their fair allocation of funding; and further urges the Government to accelerate its implementation of Lord Layard's report, which says that expanding therapy services could be paid for by the savings this would create for expenditure on benefits.
	Another Opposition day and another debate on health—we have been getting rather used to them in recent months. I was particularly keen to use this opportunity to raise concerns about mental health services. It is something of a paradox that, although mental health problems touch one in three families, mental health still does not get nearly enough attention in this place or in the broader public debate. One in six of us will be diagnosed as having depression or a chronic anxiety disorder at some time in our lives, and yet in many respects mental health remains a Cinderella service. Mental health problems bring misery and deprivation. In many families, someone who suffers from mental health problems can end up being excluded from the job market, meaning that the whole family suffers in poverty, particularly if that person is the breadwinner. I hope that the debate will be constructive and that the Government will respond positively to the concerns that I and no doubt many others will raise. The subject is far too important for cheap political point scoring.
	The timing of the debate is interesting. The Mental Health Bill is going through Committee and it is fair to say that there are fundamental disagreements. I do not in any sense seek to undermine the Government's genuine position on the Bill, but none the less there are genuine disagreements between the Government and both Opposition parties and the Mental Health Alliance—a pretty remarkable alliance, which represents many people who work in the mental health field. I do not want to spend time today talking about the issues that are central to the Mental Health Bill. Suffice it to say that in our view the best approach to safeguarding the interests of people with mental health problems and to protecting the public is to ensure that those who need help can access the services that they need.
	It is worth noting that one in three people who are sectioned report that they were previously turned away when they sought help from mental health services. Recently, I heard from an eminent psychiatrist that the people at the extreme end—those who are most likely to demonstrate violence—are those who are not accessing services at all. It is thus important that we use the debate to focus on access to services. I remain disappointed that the Government seem to focus on compulsion when there is a real risk that that approach will divert resources into acute services and away from the services that provide the critical early intervention that can do so much good. That would be damaging for patients and would put the public at greater risk.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend might be aware that the 24-hour emergency clinic at the Maudsley hospital, which is the main psychiatric hospital in the country, will be closed next week. Since the last general election, no Health Minister has visited the clinic. People have specifically said that there is a risk that that closure will make the difference to them between being in control of their own life and losing their life through taking their own life. Does my hon. Friend agree that people's access to the services that they need is the practical aspect of today's debate? While the Government might often say warm words, they do not take the right decisions.

Norman Lamb: I will be saying more about the fact that deficits throughout the country are leading to the loss of key services. Sadly, the example that my hon. Friend cites is one of too many from around the country.
	I acknowledge that the Government have invested extra resources in mental health services. Since 1999, investment in specialist mental health services has increased by £1.5 billion.

David Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that there has been a growth in resources, at least until 2006, why does the motion suggest that
	"historic under-funding...has been exacerbated by...top-slicing"
	in the most recent year? Is that not rather harsh?

Norman Lamb: There is no inconsistency at all. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there has been historical underfunding of mental health services over decades. This has been a Cinderella service for a long time. However, I am trying to be open and straightforward by saying that I acknowledge the extra investment that was put in place until deficits and top-slicing in many parts of the health economy caused real problems over the past year or two. There is no inconsistency in my argument.
	The Lib Dems supported the extra investment —[ Interruption. ] We voted in favour of the increase and argued the case for it —[ Interruption. ] I am being heckled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right that he is being heckled. There is a crossfire of sedentary comments that the debate would do better without.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me from my rather disorderly colleagues.
	The Lib Dems argued the case for extra investment. When the Government proposed an increase in national insurance to fund investment in the health service, we supported them. No argument of inconsistency or opportunism can be made against us. We have argued our case consistently.

Ivan Lewis: The motion implies that the Liberal Democrats would make additional resources available for mental health services, rather than support the existing resource base that the Government have created. Where would those resources come from?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but he will get the answer as my speech develops.

Robert Key: Let me attempt to find some cross-party common ground in this debate, which started promisingly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament should be examining carefully the way in which this country treats people with dementia? Alzheimer's sufferers often find themselves without resources and in acute hospitals in which there are no personnel who are trained to cope with Alzheimer's patients. We are putting too great a burden on hard-pressed families and not giving patients with dementia the opportunity to live the dignified life that they deserve.

Norman Lamb: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many of my elderly constituents have to look after loved ones suffering from dementia, even though they are often frail. They are often isolated, and we do not have the support infrastructure in place to help them to cope with the real pressures that they face.
	There are several reasons why we should not be complacent about the situation. First, while we supported the real-terms increase in investment, the proportion of total NHS spending going to mental health services has decreased at a time when need is clearly increasing. Secondly, despite the extra investment, services throughout the country remain inconsistent and are often inadequate. Thirdly, the deficits of the past two years have had a damaging impact on core mental health services.

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Reform and change have been planned and put into effect, but the deficits have had a negative impact on the change process. In the hospital in Bodmin, which is in my constituency, in-patient wards were amalgamated on the basis that more support would be available for people in the community. There is now a worry that the change in the financial set-up will mean that the resources in the community will not materialise, so a ward will be lost without the alternative benefit being put in place.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend's concern will be shared by many people throughout the country, especially, I suspect, those in rural areas. We in Norfolk have the same worry.
	Let me deal with the areas to which I referred. Although real-terms spending has increased, the proportion of NHS spending given to mental health services has fallen from 14 per cent. of the total spend in 1997 to 11 per cent. today. I appreciate that the situation presents real challenges, but I am trying, in a mature way, to point out that at a time when concern about the need for mental health services is rising and there is an increased prevalence of mental health problems in our society, we should collectively be worried that the proportion of total health spending going to mental health is going down. For example, the mental health of children and teenagers in this country has declined over the past 30 years, although, interestingly, the prevalence has remained relatively stable in other areas. The Nuffield Foundation has found that the prevalence of behavioural problems has doubled over 25 years while that of emotional problems such as depression and anxiety has soared by some 70 per cent. It is especially striking that the prevalence of mental health problems has increased at a time when economic conditions and physical health have improved. It appears that this is the emerging health problem of our age.

Meg Hillier: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the figures on the prevalence of mental health problems among teenagers. Is he suggesting that such problems have increased by the amount that he mentions, or has the recording of problems among people of that age group increased? Also, what would his party do to increase funding for mental health? Which area of health funding would he take the money from to increase funding for mental health?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady makes a fair point; in part, the increase may be down to an increased recording of problems, but certainly the Nuffield Foundation concluded that there was increasing prevalence. I am not here to suggest any simplistic solutions. If there is an increase in the prevalence of such problems among teenagers, I should have thought that we could agree, across the parties, that we all ought to try to address it.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Lamb: I have tried to be generous in giving way, but I would prefer to make a little progress. I will perhaps give way later. I shall come back to the issue of teenagers later, but surely it is tragic that youngsters often do not get access to the support that they need. We know all too well the price that we pay, and more particularly that they pay, if they do not get effective early intervention. We need only look at the problems in our prisons and consider the fact that 80 per cent. of women in prison suffer from mental health problems. That is quite apart from the reduced life chances, in terms of education, for youngsters who suffer from mental health problems in their teenage years.
	The second and related point is that despite the increased investment, which we acknowledge, we have a long way to go if we are to ensure consistent access to high-quality services across the country in both rural and urban Britain, and for all sections of society, including ethnic minorities.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been very generous. He talks about access. I was part of a primary care psychiatric team in a previous job, and I was allowed to admit and see patients. Why does his party support giving that role back to doctors? If the role is given to the whole mental health team, that would deal with the issue of access.

Norman Lamb: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is entirely accurate, but I note the point that he makes, and I take it seriously. He obviously speaks from experience.

Julia Goldsworthy: My experience contrasts completely with that of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine); outreach teams have real difficulty reaching people. A friend of mine had a daughter who was suicidal. That daughter was at home and in serious danger of injuring herself—she subsequently committed suicide—and her husband, who also has mental health difficulties, was told to try to restrain her for a minimum of two hours, because that was how long it would take to send someone out, as a shift change was taking place. That is the kind of difficulty that is being faced on a day-to-day basis. There is a real difficulty in terms of capacity.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that telling intervention. My hon. Friend tells an incredibly depressing story about her friend's circumstances. My experience is of North Norfolk, a very rural area. For people with mental health problems who live in a village, the support that is on offer is often threadbare or non-existent, and the sense of isolation is very real. That experience is common to many parts of rural Britain, where people who suffer mental ill-health have problems accessing support services.
	There is clear evidence of unequal access to services for ethnic minorities. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health concluded that investment in community-based services would free up millions of pounds that is currently spent on African and Caribbean people in psychiatric hospitals and secure units. Such people are six times more likely to be in medium-secure units than white people in our capital city. There are all sorts of reasons for that discrimination within health services— [Interruption.] Well, it does amount to discrimination, because those people are far more likely to suffer compulsion than white people are. We need to find the reasons for that and to address the issue. We have to ensure that the early intervention services, which ethnic minority communities often cannot access, are there for them.
	The Government have rightly made a commitment to securing race equality in mental health services, but progress has been too slow. There is evidence that mental health facilities continue to be the poor relation to acute services, not just in relation to ethnic minorities, but generally. A Mind survey found dissatisfaction with the state of repair on wards, and the Healthcare Commission found that mental health facilities had markedly poorer standards of cleanliness than acute hospitals. There can be no justification for mental health patients being treated less favourably than patients in any other acute unit.

Steve Webb: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, does he share my concern that people with mental health problems often have worse problems with their physical health than people who do not have mental health problems? Their mental health problems often mean that they do not access physical health services, and that reinforces the disadvantage that they already have.

Norman Lamb: There is a clear correlation between mental health problems and physical health problems, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point.
	One of the most serious continuing failings of mental health services is that services for children and teenagers are too often inadequate. Last summer, it was revealed that the Government's key targets for children and young people accessing psychiatric care would be missed. In a quarter of the country there is no emergency help for teenagers suffering a psychotic crisis or severe depression. Far too many 16 and 17-year-olds continue to end up in adult psychiatric wards when they are compulsorily sectioned, and I realise that Ministers agree with me on that point. I am sure that we can all agree that that is completely unacceptable in this day and age, but it is still happening.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman did not have the advantage of attending the Mental Health Bill Committee this afternoon. We heard the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), give serious assurances that the Government would come back to the House with amendments on how to tackle precisely the issue that he mentions. It is a shame that this debate curtailed debate on the Mental Health Bill this evening.

Tim Loughton: That is not what the Minister promised.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). There seems to be some dispute about exactly what the Minister did commit to, but perhaps we will hear from the Minister herself later. I will address the issue of the massive under-provision of psychological therapies in detail later.
	My third concern relates to what the Select Committee on Health described last December as the "simply unacceptable" cuts that have resulted from the financial crisis that has afflicted many parts of the NHS. In many parts of the country, valuable support services have been lost, and that has affected some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Rethink has estimated that some £60 million of cuts have been made to mental health services, not as a result of financial crises within mental health trusts, but as a result of primary care trusts cutting block grant funding for mental health.

David Anderson: On cuts, does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities are key providers of mental health services, yet authorities such as Newcastle city council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, have deliberately taken the party political decision not to increase council tax above inflation, and have therefore cut social services budgets, including the budget for mental health funding?

Norman Lamb: I said earlier that I hoped we would all take the view that the issue was too important for cheap political point-scoring. My concern is about the funding of mental health services within the NHS; that is what the debate is all about. I want to raise a specific and important point about the impact of payment by results. In a survey by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health last year, two thirds of mental health trusts said that the introduction of payment by results for acute services was causing a diversion of funds from mental health. Acute trusts are now incentivised to do more work because of payment by results—payment following patients—but that does not apply in mental health services, and primary care trusts therefore seek to make savings elsewhere. Mental health is exactly the sort of soft target, which the Select Committee on Health identified in its report last December, that has suffered cuts as a result of the crises experienced by many PCTs. The Committee was right to criticise the impact on soft targets such as mental health. Surely, it is unacceptable that people suffering from mental health problems should pay the price for financial crises in the health service.
	As for my own experience of the impact of cuts in Norfolk, the mental health trust has suffered a cut in funding from Norfolk PCT. Recently, I met some GPs who told me that they had referred a number of youngsters so that they could receive mental health support such as anger management, cognitive behavioural therapy and so on. In each case, they were told that there was no service available for those people. They said that the situation was the worst that they had ever experienced in their time working as GPs, which is surely a cause of concern. The Heron coach was a wonderful initiative that provided a movable drop-in service for people in rural North Norfolk. It moved around rural areas during the week, providing a local access point for people suffering from depression, anxiety and so on.
	I was looking at the internet today, and I discovered that in 2003, the mental health trust lauded the initiative as something that provided services to people in remote rural areas. In 2006, the service was lost because of the cut in funding, again making people in remote rural areas more isolated. I remember a woman who came to see me in my village advice surgery last September. She had struggled just to drive up to the village in her car, and she was at a loss to know what she would do without the support of that service, which had provided such valuable support until then.
	May I move on to the fourth issue that I wish to raise—the economic impact of mental health problems for both the individual and society, and the need for Government Departments to work together much more effectively to ensure that resources are used to optimum effect? May I respond to interventions from Government Members, by saying that to a large extent that is about using resources more effectively, rather than simply increasing them? Lord Layard focused on that in "The Depression Report" last June. He highlighted the waste of talent and the loss to the economy of the extraordinary numbers of people who are left stranded on incapacity benefits—people who could be successfully treated but who do not gain access to psychological therapies. One million people are on incapacity benefits as a result of mental health problems, and 30 per cent. of new applicants for incapacity benefits have a mental illness. Half the people on long-term incapacity benefit suffer from depression. Those are extraordinary figures: the human cost is massive, not just for the person suffering but for their families, too, and there is distress and deprivation. For children and teenagers, depression and anxiety often stop them learning, and condemn many of them to limited life chances as a result.

Rosie Winterton: May I just press the hon. Gentleman again on that point, because he will know that Lord Layard's report calls for 10,000 more psychologists? Why, therefore, did he vote against the Government proposals to give more powers and responsibilities to people such as psychologists? He voted against that, so I cannot understand how he ties it in with supporting Lord Layard's report.

Norman Lamb: That is a complete confusion of the issues, and the Minister knows that. It has nothing at all to do with the case for increasing investment to provide the therapies that people simply do not receive at the moment. The Minister does herself an injustice by making that somewhat disingenuous point.

Tim Loughton: May I uncharacteristically help the hon. Gentleman, because the situation is slightly unfair? The Minister mentioned things that have come up in our debates on the Mental Health Bill. The hon. Gentleman may well wish to ask her why she is not prepared to give psychologists the additional powers necessary to enact sectioning in the first place, only to renew sectioning after the statutory period. She is the one who should answer those questions, not someone who has not been privy to proceedings on the Bill in Committee.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming to my aid. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the point that he made.

Chris Bryant: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about incapacity benefit, and the way in which it weighs down in particular constituencies. In my own area, 21 per cent. of people of working age are on incapacity benefit, more than 50 per cent. of them for mental health reasons. I am concerned about how we are going to raise the capacity of mental health services fast enough to be able to meet demand so that we stop people just popping pills to deal with mental health problems, and provide more talking therapies, as we find it very difficult to fill vacancies.

Norman Lamb: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and he makes a valid point. Our case is simply that a great deal of priority needs to be given to expanding capacity, because—I shall come to this later—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence itself concluded that we can make a real difference if we can increase capacity.
	I want to focus on not just the cost to individuals but the cost to the economy. Layard estimates that the total loss of output as a result of depression and chronic anxiety is £12 billion a year or 1 per cent. of national income. Despite that, however, people are not receiving the help that they need. What is missing? As I said in response to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), NICE has issued guidelines stating that psychological therapies should be available to all people with depression and anxiety disorders or schizophrenia, unless the problem is very mild or recent. However, there are not enough therapists, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. As a result of the inadequate number of therapists, waiting times are often very long—nine months is common—and often there is no therapy available at all, so GPs in those circumstances have no option but to prescribe drugs or to offer no help at all. GPs themselves acknowledge that they over-prescribe drugs in circumstances in which they would prefer to refer their patient for therapy which, however, is not available. Only one in four people suffering from depression or chronic anxiety receive any kind of treatment. That is a scandal in this day and age, and it needs to be addressed.
	The Government make much of their commitment to choice in health care, yet for those people there is no choice at all, unless they can afford to opt out. If they can afford to do so, they can gain access to the therapies that we are discussing. We are spending a fortune on benefits, and the economy is suffering a loss of billions of pounds in lost output. Therapies are available that have a proven track record and which are recommended by NICE, yet most people who could benefit and who could be helped back to work cannot get the help that they need. Lord Layard estimates that an effective course of therapy costs about £750, which is about what it costs in benefits and lost taxes every month that someone remains out of work.
	I acknowledge that the Government are pursuing pilots—the Minister referred to that in a recent Westminster Hall debate—and that the number of those pilots is expanding, but progress is too slow. Imagine the outcry that there would be if there were NICE guidelines on, for example, cancer treatment that were being ignored across much of the country. There would be an enormous outcry—rightly so—and it would achieve a response. We owe it to people with mental health problems to demand exactly the same response that people who suffer from cancer and other physical conditions can get from their politicians. This demonstrates yet again the extent to which this is a Cinderella service. Implementing the guidelines requires a significant increase in the number of therapists—Layard estimates a figure of about 10,000. It will take time—he reckoned seven years—but he argues that the cost would be totally offset by savings in benefits and increases in tax revenues.
	Another area that the Government need to deal with relates to stigma associated with mental health. In New Zealand, a Government programme to tackle stigma appears to have been very successful. They have invested in the job of reducing the stigma of mental illness. Persuading employers to take on people who have had mental health problems is sometimes a significant challenge, but it has had some effect in New Zealand. I urge the Government to look closely at what they have done and to pursue a similar route in this country.

Diana Johnson: Instead of looking as far away as New Zealand, would the hon. Gentleman care to look at what is happening in Hull? Mind in Hull runs a project working with employers to get alongside them and persuade them to take on people with mental health difficulties. It works with employers for a considerable amount of time to support them and the person concerned. That is an excellent example of the voluntary sector working alongside the NHS in the wider sense of mental health services.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. She makes a valuable point about the enormously beneficial and positive role that the voluntary sector can perform in working together with employers and statutory agencies, for example to reduce stigma in mental illness. It sounds like an extremely impressive project, and I am grateful to her for alerting me to it.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to stigma. Does he accept that there is still a great deal that the national media can do in terms of how they describe and portray the problems associated with mental ill health? It is not that long since  The Sun described a crisis that Frank Bruno was going through with the headline, "Barmy Bruno lashes out", or something similar. The outcry from the population and their readership was such that they had to pull that headline, and later editions of the paper were rather more balanced in tone. Does he think that the media can do a lot more to address the stigma that still exists in society?

Norman Lamb: That is an extremely important point. There is often enormous hypocrisy in the media when they, on the one hand, argue the case for better resources for mental health but, on the other hand, behave in that pretty disreputable way. The challenge is there for all of us to work to reduce stigma, and the media are very much part of that.
	We need a renewed focus on mental health. The Government need to remedy the damage that has been done in the past two years as a result of deficits.

Ivan Lewis: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said, which is extremely reasonable. However, as he reaches the end of his remarks, the question that he still has not dealt with is where the additional resources are coming from, which taxes will be put up, and which parts of the NHS will be reduced to take account of the additional resources needed.

Norman Lamb: The Minister is suffering from the problem of having left the Chamber for a short while; perhaps he can consult with his colleagues. The argument that Layard put forward is one example of how resources can be better used to achieve beneficial results.
	The Government need to remedy the damage done by deficits over the past two years and to acknowledge that and to commit to ensuring that that damage is remedied. They also need to be honest enough to recognise that there is a long way to go before we achieve consistent access to services and choice for people in the treatment that they receive. That must be a priority. The Government have to be much smarter at joined-up government. We can achieve the great prize of helping so many people to get better, helping them back to work, and benefiting the economy by ensuring that they have access to the therapy that NICE recommends. Surely we have a duty to those people who suffer in silence and in isolation.

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the extra £1.65 billion spent on mental health services since 2001; supports the record number of staff working in mental health since 1997 including almost 9,400 more psychiatric nurses and over 1,300 more consultant psychiatrists; further welcomes the lowest suicide rates since records began; recognises the work of the 700 new mental health teams in the community; notes the national patient survey, which shows that 77 per cent. of community patients rate their care as good, very good or excellent; recognises that between 2001 and 2005 £1.6 billion capital was spent by mental health trusts on improvements to mental health wards; further welcomes the Government's commitment to expanding access to psychological therapies; and further welcomes the Government's Mental Health Bill, which will update the legislation to reflect advances in knowledge and new ways of treating people, particularly in the community."
	I notice that, unfortunately, lots of Liberal Democrat Members, including their leader, have flooded out of the Chamber. I was rather hoping that I might be able to say something that would cheer him up a little.
	Despite this being an Opposition day debate, I think that there is a certain amount of consensus about the fact that, first, there has been considerable investment in the NHS over the past decade; secondly, mental health services have been modernised and reformed; and thirdly, a large part of the credit for making services better for patients is due to a willingness for staff working in mental health services to maximise the use of that extra investment by adopting new ways of working and using their skills to the full, whether that be by working in new community teams or by taking on more responsibilities.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Mental Health Bill is about expanding the role and responsibilities of professionals, while the Opposition's policy is about contracting the role and responsibilities of professionals?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. I shall come on to discuss the Mental Health Bill later. It is important that the Liberal Democrat spokesman should be aware of everything that his party is doing with regard to that Bill. Given his remarks, I would be surprised if he was in favour of some of the positions that are being taken.
	Mental health services have changed considerably over the past decade. Of course, we are not saying that they are perfect, but we are making real progress, particularly in specialist mental health services, which are relied upon by more than 1 million people every year. That progress did not happen by accident, or just by putting the extra money in; it happened because this Government put mental health at the top of their list of priorities. In 1998 we set out our view of modern mental health services in a White Paper, and by the following year we published the national service framework for mental health, which defined for the first time a set of standards that mental health services are expected to attain.
	In 2000 the NHS plan spelled out an ambitious modernisation agenda, with new community teams, secure beds and additional funding. We now have strong multidisciplinary networks for supporting people in the community. In total, more than 700 crisis resolution, assertive outreach and early intervention teams are in place in England. Those teams work to keep people out of hospital, supporting them in the community and providing care in the least restrictive environment consistent with their individual needs.

Tim Loughton: If that is the aim of the Minister's policy and she believes that she has achieved it, why, in more than 10 years of a Labour Government, has the number of people sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 doubled?

Rosie Winterton: First, the number of in-patient stays has decreased. We are trying to ensure that we get treatment to people when they need it. The number of people sectioned under the Act every year has remained fairly stable; I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the idea of its having doubled. However, we continue to want to make changes, and community teams are part of that process, to ensure that we can provide help early, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, to prevent the deterioration that too often leads to sectioning.
	Traditionally, a view developed that removing people with mental health problems from their families and their home environment was the best road to recovery. However, that is often not what people want. They have repeatedly told us to give them help and support in the community, often in their homes, and that is what we have done. In the past four years, I—I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members too—have visited many community-based teams and seen first-hand evidence of the difference that they make in transforming people's lives. That applies not only to service users but to carers. The teams help maintain social networks, help people take control of their treatment and, crucially, provide timely support at times of crisis. In addition to the 700 new teams, we have 1,500 new community gateway staff to improve patients' access to specialised services.

Norman Lamb: I agree with the Minister's point about the value of the outreach work. However, does she accept that one effect of the deficits is that some of that work has suffered? I have witnessed that in my county of Norfolk, where cuts have occurred.

Rosie Winterton: I shall deal with deficits later. It is important to stress that we are not aware of redundancies, but I shall revert to that matter shortly because I want to cover the hon. Gentleman's point.

Chris Bryant: The Minister has outlined various things that the Government have done to increase the resources for mental health services. However, the proportion of health spending on mental health has fallen in the past 10 years. There are two ways of tackling that if one believes that the proportion is too low. First, other spending in the NHS could be cut. Secondly, the spending on mental health services could be increased faster than other health spending. Does the Minister hope that the proportion that we spend on mental health services will increase in the years ahead?

Rosie Winterton: I challenge some of my hon. Friend's points. The proportion of spending has not fallen. Some figures show that the proportion for in-patient care has fallen, but the overall spend has increased. However, I shall deal with that later.
	We also recognised the need to modernise in-patient services, so that when people must go into hospital, they have access to more therapeutic opportunities and make a speedy recovery. That is why, on top of the capital allocations made available to trusts, we have provided an additional £190 million in the past five years.
	The national service framework was accompanied by record investment. There has been an increase every year since we published the framework. According to the European Commission, the UK devotes one of the highest proportions of its overall health budget to mental health of any EU member state. We now spend £1 billion more in real terms on mental health services than we did six years ago; that is £1.65 billion in cash terms.
	The motion states that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health has decreased over the past 10 years. In 1996-97, expenditure on specialist mental health services was 8.03 per cent. of the total net NHS spend. By 2005-06, that had risen to 8.41 per cent. It is important to see the overall picture. In 1996-97, we were spending 8.03 per cent. of a net budget of almost £33 billion on mental health services, whereas in 2005-06, the figure had risen to 8.41 per cent. of a net budget of well over £76 billion. The figures must therefore be viewed in the context of increased overall expenditure from £33 billion to £76 billion. The real-terms increase in investment is clear. That has not been disputed by any party for some time. The increase has happened, and made some genuine differences.
	Such unprecedented investment has allowed us to make significant staff changes. Compared with 1997, we have almost 9,400 more psychiatric nurses, more than 1,300 more consultant psychiatrists and 2,700 clinical psychologists. The suicide rate—again, something against which to measure the success of our policies—has fallen to its lowest recorded level. According to the European Commission, it is one of the lowest in Europe, thanks to our national suicide prevention strategy.

Simon Hughes: I do not want to go into detail about statistics; the Minister and I have discussed those in other contexts. However, does she accept that short-term reductions in funds have occurred in some areas? My part of south London is one of those, because of the top-slicing of primary care trusts that are less able to give money to our South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust—with adverse effects. However, if the Minister accepts that need is increasing, have she and her colleagues put in a bid to the Chancellor? In the comprehensive spending review announcement that we expect in the next couple of months, will there be an additional real-terms significant allocation of money for mental health services for the next three years?

Rosie Winterton: It would not be appropriate to give all the details of our bid in the comprehensive spending review. However, let me consider deficits and their effect on mental health services. We have made it clear that we would not tolerate any mental health trust being asked to contribute more in financial savings or cost improvement plans than any other service in the local health economy, unless that trust contributed to the deficit. My Department has investigated a small number of allegations in the past year, and found that in each case the savings required of mental health trusts were not disproportionate compared with the rest of the local health economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any similar cases are brought to our attention, we will investigate them.

Daniel Rogerson: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurances. In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I was trying to emphasise the great change that is taking place. The Minister has already alluded to the refocusing from in-patient services to services in the community. At such times, services may be even more vulnerable to an overall re-examination of funding. If all trusts are being asked to examine where they spend their money, it may be especially important to examine closely those that offer mental health services to ensure that the impacts on them are not adverse.

Rosie Winterton: As I said, we have made it very clear that we do not expect mental health trusts to have to make any disproportionate contribution. I recall an hon. Member coming to see me about the proposed withdrawal of an early intervention team. Because that related to one of the very clear targets that we had set, we pointed out that it would not be the right approach, and the health authority did things slightly differently. We were able to ensure that the early intervention team remained in place.
	When I meet mental health staff, I always find that they want us to ensure that financial deficits are sorted; it is important to recognise that. Although mental health trusts have historically often kept their finances in good order, they have always felt slightly vulnerable in the event of financial problems. One thing that mental health staff often say to me is, "We just want the overall situation sorted out. You are quite right to go down the road of doing that, because in mental health, we worry that if things are not right, people will come back to us and ask for more cuts in services." We are on the right track there, but with the proviso that we ensure that mental health services are not asked for disproportionate amounts of money.
	The Opposition motion also calls for appropriate settings to be provided for young people who need to go into hospital for a mental health problem. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made a commitment to eliminate within two years the use of adult psychiatric wards for children younger than 16. We are writing to strategic health authorities, informing them that if a child younger than 16 is placed on an adult psychiatric ward, it should be reported as a serious untoward incident. That is against a background of massively improved spending on child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—from £284 million in 2002 to something like £513 million in 2005, which is a rise of more than 80 per cent.
	I was asked to look again at the Mental Health Bill with particular regard to age-appropriate accommodation. I said in Committee this morning that I would look at whether it was possible to amend the Mental Health Bill along the lines put forward by YoungMinds about age-appropriate settings. Bearing in mind what was said about political point scoring, I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the Conservative Opposition put out a press release saying that all Labour Members had voted against this, when I specifically said that I would take the amendments away. We discussed why they were not appropriate at the time and I undertook to keep the Opposition informed about any decisions in order to involve them in the issues. I am therefore very disappointed that they have decided to act in this way.

David Taylor: The decision announced by the Under-Secretary is certainly a step forward, but does not the national service framework for children and young people refer—in standard 9, I believe—to the need for the broader group, not just under-16s, to receive care and attention appropriate to their age? What progress can we look forward to for the wider group? That is fine for under-16s, but there are still far too many adolescents older than 16 in adult wards. That cannot be tolerated much longer.

Rosie Winterton: That is absolutely right—but it is all about ensuring that the correct assessment is made. We have to recognise that sometimes circumstances will be difficult, as in the case of emergencies, and we need to be clear that we can deliver treatment where it is necessary rather than turn a child away. However, we have made particular commitments about how best to handle that situation. I want to ensure that we get the services right, and that any legislation that we introduce does not create a perverse incentive for children not to get treatment because a clinician feels that what he wants to do is unlawful. It is a delicate balance and, as I said, we are looking further into the position. We were all agreed in Committee along the lines that I have outlined—that we want to see the change happen, but we want to ensure that we get it right.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I expect wants to apologise.

Tim Loughton: Far from apologising, I want to challenge the Minister's sanctimonious claptrap. She knows full well that all 12 of her colleagues in Committee voted against a provision in the Mental Health Bill, added in the other place, that would have given guarantees for age-appropriate treatment to some of our most vulnerable children. She knows that that is what they did. Furthermore she—along with her mental health tsar and colleagues in the Lords—has been talking for months and months and months about looking into the problem and doing something about it, but at no point has she promised to come back with a new amendment that will specifically address those concerns. She has said only that she will have a look at the problem, which is far removed from promising to do something about it.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the debate in Committee this morning was quite reasonable and sensible. We agreed that there were some real issues that needed to be looked at. Particular points were raised under one of the amendments to the amendment, which again put the doctor in charge by referring to registered medical practitioners. That was different from what we wanted, which is to give more powers to people such as psychologists and nurse consultants. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is why we said that we would take the amendment away. His comments are purely for political point scoring: he well knows that, and he is being slightly disingenuous if he fails to admit it.
	I am glad that the Opposition motion mentions our work on improving access to talking therapies. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the Government will expand its programme to gather more evidence to support the hypothesis put forward by Lord Layard and his colleagues at the London School of Economics. We are also working very closely with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive, particularly looking at the connections between the pathways to work condition management programme and our work on improving access to psychological therapies. It is important for the various strands to work closely together to ensure that we can provide holistic support for those who really need it. I think that the Treasury recognises the importance of the work that we are doing, particularly in the two pilot sites. That has been a major part of the Government's cross-cutting review of mental health and employment.
	It is right to talk about the importance of getting employers to take responsibility and help employees who are having mental health problems. Some of that is also about the Government and others providing the right kind of information and support, of which our "action on stigma" programme forms an important part. Organisations such as Royal Mail and BT have put forward some good policies and we should ensure that others are made aware of them. We should gradually get people to sign up to that kind of approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) said that there were good examples around the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who is no longer in his place, pointed out that the media also have an important part to play.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend mentioned holistic working. Bolton, Salford and Trafford have a single mental health trust, and I recently attended a meeting with GPs in Salford and Trafford at which they raised the significant differences in access to psychological services in the different areas. Their conclusion was that services were better in Salford precisely because of the things that my hon. Friend has described, such as improved counselling—the service is keen to shift resources around the city to improve access—and the fact that people are prepared to work outside silos and to prepare maps of counselling services to try to provide access. They highlighted projects such as Salford women's centre, which has very good counselling services that can be made available. Apart, possibly, from certain bigger factors, the difference seemed to be made entirely by those things. People in Salford are getting right those holistic approaches and different ways of working. Waiting times and access to psychological services are considerably better in Salford than in Trafford.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. I invite her to come to Doncaster to look at the pilot there, which has been incredibly successful. To date, about 4,000 people have benefited from access to psychological therapies. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and I would be more than happy to entertain her in Doncaster and to show her all the good things there.

Norman Lamb: The Minister referred to the pilots. Will she tell us whether she is fighting to speed up the process to ensure that the NICE guidelines, which have been in place for some time, can be met? At the moment, progress seems very slow.

Rosie Winterton: It is a great step forward that we have the NICE guidelines. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy is also coming on stream. We still need to make progress, however; there is no doubt about that. The important thing about our approach is that we are demonstrating through the pilot sites that these methods can quickly have a real effect. In such circumstances, we often need to convince commissioners that this is a good approach and that it will help to get care to a large number of people. That is why we are pushing in that direction. There is certainly a commitment; indeed, that was in our manifesto.
	It is also right to say that there are some very real issues that we need to tackle, and we are doing so. Those include the experiences of people from black and ethnic minority communities when using and accessing mental health services. However, our national director for mental health, Professor Appleby, recently gave his summary of the progress made in the past 10 years, and he concluded that removing the inequalities of patient experience between ethnic groups through more responsive services, community engagement and staff training was a central part of the agenda and a key priority for the coming years. We are making progress with implementing the "delivering race equality" programme. We now have 160 community development workers in post and we are working with local services to employ the full complement of 500 workers as planned.
	I also recommend the very good work in the focused implementation sites, which are looking particularly at why people do not come forward to access services, the experiences of people from BME communities when they get into the services, and what problems are involved in ensuring that people receiving those services are treated with respect for their cultural background. That work is about looking at how we can deliver our race equality programme in practice.
	The Government have spent 10 years improving the mental health service and rescuing it from being the Cinderella service that it was during the Conservative years. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), pointed out, there has been a great deal of talk from the Liberal Democrats about all the changes that are necessary, but very little illumination of where all the money would come from. On the Mental Health Bill, they have turned fence-sitting into a fine art.
	As part of our changes to the delivery of high-quality mental health services, we must ensure that we update our mental health legislation so that it not only reflects current service delivery but deals with problems involving human rights and court judgments. That is why we decided to update the legislation. Our work has not been helped by scaremongering from certain organisations and, indeed, from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). One of his more bizarre comments was that the Bill would make lobotomies more widespread. He also said that anyone addicted to cigarettes could be detained under the Bill. Such depictions of legislation are the one thing that puts people off using services. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that people are treated; to paint it as some have painted it is quite wrong and unfair to some very vulnerable people.
	The Opposition parties now claim to be the champions of mental health, but time and again they vote against measures that would ensure provision of treatment for those who desperately need it in order to prevent harm to themselves or to others. As I have said, I am not sure that the hon. Member for North Norfolk is aware of everything that his party is voting for, but I can give an example.
	The Opposition parties want to introduce an impaired decision-making test. That would mean that the use of detention was no longer determined by a patient's needs and by risk to self or others. The first question would be whether the patient's capacity to make decisions about treatment was impaired. If their capacity could not be shown to be impaired, detention would be forbidden, however much the patient needed treatment and however much the patient or others would be at risk without it. The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for North Norfolk argue that we are wrongly detaining people who have the ability to make a decision about their treatment. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that many people under section retained the capacity to determine their treatment. The implications of the impaired decision-making test are clear, however. Not all suicidal patients have impaired judgment.
	The Opposition parties have taken a very libertarian view. If someone has been through all the options and, although seriously ill, understands the treatment and does not pass the impaired decision-making test, who—they ask—are we to ensure that that person is treated? Given that people can refuse physical treatment, why should those with a mental disorder be given treatment? I have been given examples of young women suffering from borderline personality disorder—women who are suicidal and have had a terrible time in life as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, but who, when all the options are explained to them, will still say, "I want to commit suicide." The impaired decision-making test would mean our saying "That is okay. You go and do that." I do not think we are helping anyone by not enabling clinicians to give treatment to such people.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten the House as to the precise definition of impaired decision making? If somebody has gone through traumatic experiences and wants to commit suicide, that implies to me that they have impaired decision making.

Rosie Winterton: One of the problems in this respect is that there is no definition of impaired decision making. My hon. Friend should ask Opposition Members what they mean by that. If they are saying what they said in Committee and elsewhere, which is that many people under section retain the capacity to determine their treatment, then presumably those people will not get treatment if an impaired decision-making test is introduced.
	Let me return to the case of young women with a personality disorder. Do Opposition Members feel that it is fine to say, "Well, you know all the options and you've still decided that this is what you want to do, but we cannot treat you now as you have understood all the options"? If Opposition Members are content to take that view, I am surprised, but that is their position at present. That is the position that the Liberal Democrats take.

Lynne Jones: What does my right hon. Friend mean by understanding all the options? Is it not the case that someone might understand their options—although I am unsure whether there is a great array of options in such circumstances—but that they can still have impaired decision making if they want to commit suicide?

Rosie Winterton: They can have impaired decision making if they want to commit suicide, but it does not always follow that such people necessarily do have impaired decision making. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments of the British Psychological Society. It has said, "Yes, there will be people who do not pass the impaired decision-making test." I wonder what is my hon. Friend's position in respect of those people who, once the options and the effects of treatment have been explained, do not pass the test. It is important to remember that mental health measures currently have a simple test: is the person concerned a danger to themself or to others? Introducing another test trumps that, so that even if the individual is a danger to themself it still follows, if there is an impaired decision-making test, that that person may have to be let go without having treatment—indeed, that they must not be given treatment. That is the big problem with the impaired decision-making test. We should consider what the experts have said. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that many people will not pass the test. That means that they will not get treatment.
	The Government also believe that people who need mental health care should be able to access it. That is why we will change legislation to cover the significant number of people who under the current legislation cannot be treated because of the treatability test. The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned women who had not received the mental health care that they needed ending up in prison. If he looks at Jean Corston's report on women in prison he will see that many of them have personality disorders and have been turned away from having treatment. Jean Corston is very clear that an amendment should be made to mental health legislation to remove the treatability test, because there is no doubt that that has pervaded mental health services and has meant that people with personality disorders have been turned away time and again. The Opposition know that that is the case, but they keep rejecting it.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that it would be a better idea to have special legislation that comes under the Home Office for people with personality disorders. Those many people who have not committed a single crime and who are not necessarily a danger to others but might be a danger to themselves would suddenly be dealt with under criminal justice legislation. That is not the way to reduce stigma and discrimination. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that his party's proposal to restore the treatability test would perpetuate the situation whereby people with personality disorders are refused treatment. I am surprised that he does not know that from his constituency experience, because I know it from mine.
	The Opposition also want to introduce all sorts of exclusions into the legislation. They propose that people should not be detained for their political beliefs, for example, or for their religious or cultural beliefs. Of course, we agree with that. The exclusions under the Act, however, relate to people who have a mental disorder. Political and cultural beliefs, however, are not a mental disorder. The Opposition are creating a lawyer's paradise. As for their argument that some terrible future Government—not the present Government or perhaps the next—might lock people up for their political, cultural or religious beliefs, one would be unlikely to wave the Mental Health Act at such a Government.
	The Opposition also want to amend the Bill to restrict supervised community treatment to patients who have been detained as compulsory admissions at least twice. That will benefit fewer patients, restrict clinicians, exclude patients whose first compulsory admission has been preceded by several voluntary admissions, and make patients wait until a further crisis and a further compulsory hospitalisation have occurred. As a supporter of the Zito Trust wrote in March,
	"What possible benefit can the mentally ill person gain by obtaining a CTO only after being hospitalised twice? Once is enough".
	It is beyond belief that the Opposition are supporting that— [Interruption.] Stranger still is the Opposition amendment to restrict supervised community treatment to those who are a risk to others—

Tim Loughton: We have not got on to that yet.

Rosie Winterton: I am referring to what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading, and what his party supported in the other place. If he is resiling from what his party did in the other place, that is fine, but that is the current situation— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions. If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) wants to intervene, he ought to do so in the usual way.

Rosie Winterton: The Opposition's approach is completely wrong and would deny patients treatment that they should get.

John Pugh: In the past 10 minutes or so, the Minister has been talking about the Mental Health Bill and various amendments to it. She has not been talking about the motion before the House. Will she get round to that?

Rosie Winterton: I talked a lot about the motion, and made points relating specifically to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time.
	I have addressed the points made about deficits, employment and the need to ensure a multidisciplinary approach. That brings me to the point made about teamwork in mental health care being essential, with which the Government obviously agree. But when we introduce legislation that will improve the working of mental health teams and help to ensure continuity of care for patients, the Opposition consistently vote against it. In relation to professional roles, the Opposition fundamentally undermine the role of the responsible clinician by expecting a doctor to be involved at key points, and requiring the responsible clinician to get permission from the doctor. That would keep mental health services rooted in the past. Their approach is about paternalism and protection.
	I am astonished that the hon. Member for North Norfolk can talk so freely about psychological therapies and the importance of getting more psychologists to work in mental health, given that the reality of the amendments to the Mental Health Bill that he supports, which are against the role of the responsible clinician, mean that psychologists will be unable to have such powers and responsibilities. I suggest that he talk to organisations such as the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Nursing and Unison, which represent 85 per cent. of staff working in mental health services and which vigorously oppose those amendments.

Norman Lamb: I have made it clear that I will talk to all those organisations, but this is a completely different point. The amendments to the Mental Health Bill have nothing to do, as the Minister knows, with the case for increasing the number of therapists available for psychological therapies.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that we have spent 10 years devising new ways of working and a multidisciplinary approach, the point of which is to allow people other than psychiatrists to take responsibility for patients. We are trying to reflect that in legislation, so that this House sends a clear message about ensuring that we can recruit more psychologists, for example. The hon. Gentleman has obviously set his face against that, and I suggest that he think about the real implications of his position, which does not help and would set back all the work that has been done in achieving a multidisciplinary approach to delivering health care and in encouraging more people into the profession of psychology.
	We are updating the Mental Health Act 1983 because the world has moved on in the last 24 years. The Mental Health Bill is relevant to the Liberal Democrats' motion, in that it is important in ensuring that the people who need treatment get it. The Liberal Democrats, however, are supporting amendments that would prevent that from happening.
	Let me finish by reminding Members of a recent statement by Dr. Matt Muijen, the World Health Organisation's head of mental health in Europe. Dr Muijen, who spent many years in the UK mental health sector, pointed out that England has the best mental health services in Europe and that this is acknowledged in other countries. Interestingly, despite having spent quite a long time in the campaigning part of mental health services, he also said that we had a "culture of criticism" that prevented that fact from being acknowledged here. I know that there is still more to do, but I invite Members to free themselves from that culture and to join me in paying tribute to the many thousands of people who work in mental health services. Without them, we would have been unable to make the improvements that mean that high-quality services can be, and will continue to be, provided under this Government to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Tim Loughton: Forty-eight minutes later, it is safe to come out from behind the sofa. What a bizarre speech by the Minister! She has been re-running debates that we have had, or might still have to come, in Committee, and has tried to make up for the paucity and confusion of her logic there by resorting to complete caricature and rather bizarre claims, in response to a motion that does not actually mention the Mental Health Bill anyway and is supposed to be about mental health services. I shall not discuss what she said in detail, other than to say that I shall be fascinated to see the record of where I have said that the Mental Health Bill will lead to an increase in lobotomies, because that is news to me. I seem to recall raising with her the subject of whether lobotomies are still permissible under certain circumstances, regardless of the Mental Health Bill.
	I also challenge the Minister on the hoary old chestnut that she has trooped out for some months now about the prevention of suicide by community treatment orders and other provisions of the Mental Health Bill. She has not provided a shred of evidence to back that up, but she is already going on about how suicide rates have fallen. Even so, she still requires, apparently, some of the most coercive mental health legislation of any country in the world.
	I was delighted to receive so many mentions by the Minister—rather more than by the Liberal Democrats whose debate this is, and five of whom remain in their places. I am glad that they did not all head for the door when I started to speak, unlike the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
	The arguments I make are not just my arguments or those of my colleagues in the House of Lords. They are the arguments of 80 members of the Mental Health Alliance, occasionally including members of the British Psychological Society and a couple of others that the Minister mentioned several times. I welcome this debate. I am glad that the Liberals are following the Conservative example of trying to raise the profile of mental health issues at Westminster. I have to say, however, that this is the only debate that the Liberal Democrats have had on health matters in this Parliament and only the second since the last election. However, converts late to the party are welcome.
	The timing of the debate is curious. As the Minister said, it curtailed the debate that we were having.—more rationally than she suggested in Committee on the Bill. Bill. It is good to raise the profile of mental health. The Mental Health Bill has attracted much publicity, much of it negative because of its controversial contents. I make no apology for my role in raising those objections, but it is important that we also raise the profile of the positive developments in the mental health world and the dedication of all the staff working in difficult circumstances, something that the Minister just managed to squeeze in in the 48th minute of her contribution. We should also mention the contribution of the excellent voluntary organisations and support groups such as Mind, Rethink, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, YoungMinds and so on, as well as the carers of all those living with mental illness, on whom much of the responsibility for care falls, however good or not the legislation is. Not least among the carers are young carers, and the estimate is that some 20 per cent. of the 175,000 young carers are living with someone, usually a relative, who has a mental illness.
	While the Liberal Democrat motion is right to flag up the problems and we can support those sentiments, the tenor of the Government amendment is far too complacent. That was borne out by the rather self-congratulatory tone of the Minister's introductory remarks. The amendment paints a far too rosy picture of what most people still agree is the Cinderella service of the NHS, and CAMHS is the Cinderella service of that Cinderella service —[ Interruption. ] Well, I fear that my definition of a rosy picture is rather different from the Minister's and perhaps we should put that into the lexicon of how this Government look at things differently from reality and from the experiences of our constituents.
	I also query why, in a motion about mental health services, one of the co-signatories to the Government's amendment—alongside the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), whom one would expect—is the Home Secretary. That says a lot about the way in which the Government view mental health and the pitch of the Mental Health Bill. It is about locking people up rather than providing therapeutic benefit for a health problem.

Meg Hillier: I would point out that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are also on the list of signatories. That is just joined-up government and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that comment.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about mental health services often being seen as the Cinderella services, but he is being limited in his congratulations to the Government. I will raise later the many issues that still need to be tackled in mental health services, but he must acknowledge the huge improvements in investment and increases in psychiatric nurse and consultant numbers that are making a big difference on the ground, even though we could always do more.

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am about to deal with that. If she will allow me to make my speech, there will be time for her to make her own.

Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: I was not planning to speak for the 48 minutes that the Minister of State took, but I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State before he bashes the Dispatch Box to bits.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but does he stand by the proposition that separate, Home Office legislation should be used to deal with people with personality disorders? If so, that would be slightly inconsistent with what he said about the Home Secretary simply signing an order in this House.

Tim Loughton: No, because the proposition does not refer to people with a personality disorder—it refers only to people with a dangerous and severe personality disorder, which was the position adopted by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. It is the position to which I signed up, and the one to which every Labour Member from the Lords and this place who formed the majority in that committee signed up. It remains relevant today, so it is up to the Minister to explain why Labour members of the Public Bill Committee—including those who were members of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee—now appear to have changed their minds.
	The Minister of State was happy to trot out figures released by her mental health tsar last week in a report entitled "Mental Health Ten Years On: Progress on Mental Health Care Reform". The tone was self-congratulatory, but in that litany of statistics there was a heavy dependence on head-count figures. I shall therefore give the right hon. Lady some more statistics.
	The Government have admitted that, under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of NHS spending devoted to mental health was in double figures. We could argue about the exact figure, but it was between 11 and 14 per cent. According to the document released by the Government's mental health tsar, the proportion has been reduced over the past 10 years to just 8 to 9 per cent. That figure does not refer to in-patient spend, as the Minister claimed: that is total mental health spend, as the figures on page 4 of Lewis Appleby's document show.
	We need to be consistent about those figures. The proportion of funding that has gone to mental health in this country over the past 10 years is lower than it was in the previous 10 years under the last Conservative Government. By the Minister's logic, therefore, the spending on mental health by the previous Conservative Government must have exceeded that of other European countries by an amount even greater than that achieved by this Government.

Rosie Winterton: The figures can be a little confusing. When we talk about the proportion falling from 14 to 11 per cent., we are talking about the spend in secondary mental health services as a proportion of all secondary NHS spend. Therefore, that figure does not take account of the new services based in primary care trusts.

Tim Loughton: I do not think that anyone is convinced. The Government can spin and fudge the figures as much as they like, and we may all agree that the spend has gone up by £1.5 billion since the national service framework was established, but there is no doubt that spending has fallen in percentage terms. That is because mental health has been a lower priority under this Government than it used to be previously. There is no getting away from the fact that the absence of a level playing field can result only in promoting the stigma felt by people involved in mental health in this country.
	Other figures counter some of the claims made by Lewis Appleby. Last year's report from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health found that nearly two thirds of mental health trusts had been asked to cut their budgets to cover overspending in other areas of the NHS. Since 1997, the number of NHS beds in the mental illness sector has declined by 6,799—almost one fifth of capacity—yet, as I said earlier, twice as many people have been sectioned in the same period. More people are requiring mental health services. The King's Fund report showed that vacancy rates for psychiatrists were over 10 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. across other disciplines. It also showed that vacancy rate for mental health nurses was double that for all nurses.
	The Rethink reports "A Cut Too Far" and "A Cut Too Far: Six Months On" gave a catalogue of cuts, both planned and potential, worth £67 million. They included proposed cuts of £5 million to older people's mental health day hospitals and other services in Suffolk. In Westmorland, proposed cuts involve the closure of two mental health wards at Westmorland general hospital. In the South West London and St. George's mental health trust, which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned, Yew ward has been closed and Bluebell ward, previously women only, is now mixed. The drug addiction ward has been closed and in-patient provision for eating disorders has been closed.
	The list goes on and on. Most recently, in Milton Keynes the PCT is to cut £1.4 million from mental health services, including drug and alcohol treatment and a memory screening clinic. Those are rather different figures from the rosy picture that the Minister's mental health tsar has trotted out. I am sure that she will agree that the National Institute of Mental Health is not partisan. Its report, published in 2005, found that the bed occupancy rate was 100 per cent. on average and in London the average was 107 per cent.; that staff in a quarter of wards had to work unpaid overtime; and that half of wards lack a lead consultant, 13 per cent. have no ward manager, 12 per cent. have no administrative support and three quarters have no housekeeper.
	The Mind ward watch survey of 2004 found that 53 per cent. of in-patients said that the ward environment did not help their recovery; 27 per cent. of patients felt unsafe in hospital and 51 per cent. had been verbally or physically abused. The "Count me in" survey, which did not see the light of day for some while, was produced earlier this year. Far from repeating the Government's assertion—repeated even by the Minister in Committee this morning, remarkably—that 99 per cent. of hospitals were complying with the requirement for no mixed-sex wards, the survey showed that this year 55 per cent. of patients were not in single-sex accommodation.
	The situation is getting worse and it is worst of all in mental health hospitals. That is particularly frightening for young people, inappropriately placed in adult wards, in mixed-sex wards. It is a frightening prospect for a 15 or 16-year-old girl who has undergone a psychotic incident; many have given evidence to people interested in the Mental Health Bill.
	The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Department of Health use the same criteria to classify exactly what a mixed-sex ward is, so the Department really must explain how it has come up with such extraordinary figures that are completely out of touch with reality. I could go into detail about the situation for children and young people, which we debated at length in Committee this morning, and the alarming report by the Mental Health Act Commission, relayed by its chairman, Lord Patel, in the House of Lords. The report revealed that between April 2003 and October 2006, no fewer than 1,308 under-18s were detained in adult psychiatric units with no special safeguards—that is one a day. When the commissioners asked ward staff whether there were any plans to transfer the young person or child to more appropriate surroundings within the next seven days, they were told that there were no such plans for nearly three quarters of the children. Those are not short-term emergency measures; such things are happening day in, day out and the situation is getting worse. It is getting worse under the Labour Government, on the Minister's watch.

Angela Browning: We had a long discussion in Committee about that situation. It is an indictment of any part of the health system, but particularly in the mental health sector, that children and young people are not kept safe.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Such provision is a stipulation of the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the Minister—I thought—adhered.
	When the Minister was giving her figures, she did not mention that the Government have failed to meet their target for a public service agreement for CAMH services in every authority area by December 2006—nor was it mentioned in the mental health tsar's report. The scandal of age-inappropriate treatment for our vulnerable children and young people should be a source of shame to the Government, not a source of self-congratulation as they trot out headline figures that bear no reality to the alarming and deeply harrowing experiences that many of our young people continue to suffer. Today, the Government, the Minister and her 11 colleagues voted out of the Mental Health Bill assurances that would give some succour, security and hope to those vulnerable young people.

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because I want to allow her and others time to speak later in the debate.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) repeated the figures for the number of people on benefits by reason of a mental health disorder. The number has risen from 732,100 in 1997 to 1,092,910 last year. There has been a 194 per cent. increase in severe stress and an 82 per cent. increase in depressive episodes. Of course Lord Layard's proposals make sense. They make economic sense, but they also make sense in relation to the health of people who suffer from depression, who would be able to get back to being viable members of a community and of society, contributing through jobs and taxes.
	The Pulse report last year revealed that 93 per cent. of GPs had been forced to prescribe anti-depressants because of long waiting times, against their better medical judgment and against best clinical practice. Three quarters of those GPs were dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied with their local services for depression. Patients were waiting on average 94 days for assessment and treatment in primary care and 249 days in secondary care, with the worst waiting times, again, for children. At least 50,000 children—some as young as six—are on anti-depressants. What a start in life for those vulnerable individuals. They are being fed powerful chemicals that, in many cases, are not the most appropriate way of treating them. There has been an enormous explosion in drug prescriptions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
	When it comes to taking Lord Layard's experiments and proposals seriously, there is not only a clear economic payback, but there is a clear social and personal health payback. We have had two pilots, in Newham and in the Minister's city of Doncaster. Perhaps her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), can enlighten us as to what will happen to the findings of those pilots and whether there is going to be a full roll-out. My visit to Newham to speak to the staff who are running that excellent project certainly suggested that it had been a great success.
	There is also the issue of the disproportionate effect of the lack of mental health care on the black and minority ethnic community. That is another area that we have discussed at length in the Mental Health Bill Committee. It is no surprise that the BME community is perhaps most alarmed of all at the disproportionate effect the Bill's provisions will have on its members. There is a fear that, given the disproportionate number of people with a mental illness in the BME community, the proposals in the Mental Health Bill and particularly community treatment orders—which I will not prejudge because we have not debated them yet—will drive people away from presenting for services in the first place, and that their condition will therefore fester under the clinical radar, which is the worst of all worlds.
	I will not go into great detail about the importance of dealing with mental health problems in the workplace. We have a lot more to do in that respect. Certain examples of good practice among certain companies were mentioned, but the Government have to do a lot more to get the work-life balance right and to achieve an approach to the work force that considers their general well-being, so that people work in partnership with their companies, companies benefit from a healthy work force and the work force benefit from good mental health.
	At the last election, my party produced a mental health manifesto. We talked about making mental health a national priority in our health policy and about public health being a key feature of our future Government's health policy. Mental health is one of the most worrying ticking time bombs when it comes to the health of our nation, and, not least, the health of our children. We want greater choice for service users in mental health. That choice does not exist in mental health services at the moment. We want urgently to tackle the recruitment crisis, which the Government seem to be in denial over. The figures do not back them up. We want to see an increase in CAMHS beds and we want to place duties on health providers to admit children and young people to age-appropriate facilities. We voted for that in the Mental Health Bill Committee today. We want to see better help for black and ethnic minorities, who face particular difficulties, and we want to have more appropriate services targeted at getting them to present to mental health services in the first place. We want help for carers dealing with mental health issues and we need to address the mental health crisis in our prisons. The Conservative party signed up to all those things at the last election and we will continue to put them at the forefront of our health policy because not doing so would be a false economy.
	Conservatives will continue to move mental health up the political agenda. It is important that the Mental Health Bill is not used as a substitute for inadequate mental health services, as the Minister seems to wish to do all too often. There are no grounds for the sort of complacency about which we heard from her in ranting form. I fear that professionals throughout the country, the 80 members of the Mental Health Alliance, service users and voluntary organisations do not agree with the rosy picture that the Minister and the Government paint.
	The most vulnerable in our society deserve better. They deserve a better response to this important debate than that given by the Minister. We need a level playing field for mental health, at least to prevent the mental health time bomb from getting worse. We need to do something at last to shift the stigma attached to people with a mental illness. Addressing that fate is still one of the biggest challenges that we face, but I fear that the Government's complacency has only served to make it bigger.

Meg Hillier: First, I must tackle some of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). It is frankly an insult for him to suggest that Labour Members are complacent. I, like others, represent a constituency in which there are severe mental health needs. I remind him that under the watch of the previous Conservative Government, it was the first time that more young black men were in prison than in university. Such inequality and the inequalities that we still see in the mental health service started under that Conservative Government. It is disingenuous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there are problems that are down to this Government alone. Such an approach does not help to solve the problems that affect many of my constituents and others. Even if there is nit-picking and the issuing of petty press releases as part of the shilly-shallying on the important matter of the Mental Health Bill, I had hoped for an acknowledgment that we have a joint responsibility to tackle some of the problems. We do the people who use mental health services no favours by caricaturing things in such a way.
	After hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech, I have much nicer things to say about the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). However, he was disingenuous about the percentage fall in health funding. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, overall NHS funding increased from £44 billion to £76 billion over the period in which there was the drop in funding that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. However, that drop in funding relates to hospital services. If I have time, I will mention some of the issues surrounding hospital and community services.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the important issue of the incidence of teenage mental health problems, which we have discussed during our consideration of the Mental Health Bill. However, surely the situation is arising because there is a greater recognition of the problems among young people, for which we should all be grateful. I hope that we can reach a consensus on tackling the situation.
	During today's Committee proceedings on the Mental Health Bill, we had an interesting and informed debate about children on adult mental health wards. Among the Labour Committee members who spoke—forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my memory is not entirely accurate at this late hour—were my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). They put it on the record—many of us who did not speak agreed with them—that they were firmly in favour of children not being put on adult mental health wards, but indicated that they trusted my right hon. Friend the Minister following her promise to consider the matter again. They listened sensibly to her comments about why simply accepting the Opposition proposals would cause difficulties. It is easy to make cheap points, but being in government is about delivering real results for children on adult mental health wards, the mental health service users in my constituency and any of us who might need to use mental health services in the future.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the use of mixed wards. I have met mental health service users in my constituency a couple of times. When the question of mixed wards came up during my most recent discussion with them, I was surprised that everyone in the room—men and women from a range of backgrounds—indicated that they were in favour of mixed wards. They said that it meant that their lifestyle while detained was more normal, as they mixed with people of the opposite gender; being segregated and separated added an extra difference to their already different lifestyle while on the hospital ward. That may not be a universal view, but we should listen to the service users. As I have said before in debates in the House, we too often do not hear the voice of the user. We may be here to legislate, but in this debate we should listen to the voice of the user.

Adam Afriyie: Sadly, I am not a member of the Committee that is examining the Mental Health Bill in detail, but I have written many articles and a chapter of a book on the subject of mental health. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that mental health patients would prefer to be in mixed wards with other patients with specific mental health conditions? Is she really suggesting that that should happen? That is certainly not a reflection of anything that I have learned on the subject.

Meg Hillier: I am not suggesting anything; I am telling the House what mental health service users said to me. They did not mean sleeping in beds next to each other. They meant being on mixed wards, but a mixed ward very rarely means people of different sexes sleeping next to each other in a bay, or sharing a bathroom. They specifically said that they wanted to socialise and mix with people of the opposite gender during their detention period. They have said that to me as their MP, and I think that it is right to pass those comments on to the House.

Tim Loughton: On that logic, does the hon. Lady think that the Government's boast of having achieved 99 per cent. single-sex wards—that figure is wrong anyway—is a sign of failure?

Meg Hillier: I will not get drawn into a debate about mixed and single-sex wards; I am simply reporting the views put to me by mental health service users in my constituency, and I think that it is important that those views are put to the House. The hon. Gentleman may want to make mischief with that, but I am simply reporting the views of one group of mental health service users to whom I spoke.
	It is important to put on the record once again the many challenges that face residents and mental health service users in my constituency. People in Hackney are three times more likely to be admitted to hospital with schizophrenia than people across England as a whole. Some 40 to 45 per cent. of people detained in the City and Hackney mental health services area, mainly male, are from African and Caribbean groups, yet those groups represent only 22 per cent. of the population. Black people in England and Wales are three times more likely than the rest of the population to be admitted to hospital. Overall, African and Caribbean people, and particularly black people born in London, are 10 times more likely to be given a diagnosis of schizophrenia. We know that there are many factors involved in that. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I do not believe that the Mental Health Bill will tackle the problem; that is not what the Bill is about. There are many issues that we need to address if we are to tackle the problem. In Hackney, the problem is partly unemployment, but it is also the issue of there being many migrant communities, lots of single people, a high population density and a high turnover of population. People are without the social and support networks that there are in other parts of the country.
	The 2006 "Count me in" census survey found that black and mixed race in-patients were 85 per cent. more likely to be detained, and Asian, Chinese and other in-patients were 50 per cent. more likely to be detained than white people. White people made up 43 per cent. of the total in-patient population but only 30 per cent. of the detained population. Black people were 35 per cent. of the total in-patient population, but 46 per cent. of the detained population. To put it another way, rather starkly, there were 50 per cent. more black detained in-patients than white detained in-patients, despite there being more than 24 per cent. more white people. We should all ask ourselves why that is, and we need to recognise in this debate that there are challenging issues. The issue is not about what was done by one Government or another, but about service provision, social and health care provision, and tackling the barriers.
	I am a race equality champion for the Commission for Racial Equality, and the commission says that there are a number of barriers. It highlights user ignorance, which can be due to language and literacy difficulties—which I often come across in my constituency—cultural differences related to religion, gender and work patterns, or different needs. In some areas, the location of service delivery is a factor. That is probably not so much the case in Hackney, where everything is on the doorstep, but I hear what hon. Members have said about rural areas; I can imagine the many difficulties that are faced there. Again, I stress the fact that many of those problems will not be solved by the Mental Health Bill, and it is not on to suggest that they will be or to conflate the issues. I started to look at the Bill precisely because of my serious concern about the huge impact on many of my constituents of those inequalities, and I concluded that it will not solve them. Nevertheless, it is an important Bill, which is why I became involved in the Committee considering it.
	I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in congratulating the crisis and early intervention teams, whose work in Hackney and elsewhere is critical in tackling the long-term, challenging issues that people with mental health problems face. We should reach people before they are admitted to hospital. As I said today in a speech in Committee, more advocacy support is needed for mental health users and patients so that they can access services. I commend my local mental health trust, which is working to make sure that users are better empowered to be their own advocates. The Mind mental health user group meets fortnightly to raise issues directly with everyone from service providers to people such as me, their MP, about what needs to be done. It is right that we should recognise that people are people: they have their own views, and are not just users of mental health services.

Madeleine Moon: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been tremendous progress in the past four years in the way in which mental health service users regard their MP as someone who works for them and is an advocate for them? Many people with mental health problems would never have dreamed of approaching their MP before, but the advocacy groups in our communities have given them strength and the belief that, yes, they can move forward and campaign for themselves.

Meg Hillier: I hope that that is the case but, overall, an MP's role in the life of someone with a mental health problem is probably less useful than the other services to which I have alluded. Clearly, however, we all have a role to play.
	Advocacy services in my constituency include Derman, which works with Turkish and Kurdish groups, and plays a particularly useful role in dealing with both language and cultural issues. It helps psychiatrists meet mental health service users in situ with their families so that they can better understand the cultural and familial set-up. The Revolving Doors agency is not in my constituency, but it is renowned for dealing with difficult issues and chaotic lives to make sure that people reach services that they might not otherwise reach. The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association is based in my constituency and was set up in 1959—it is no coincidence that that was when the first Mental Health Act was introduced. The Chinese Mental Health Association, too, is important.
	Time is short, so I shall not go into the investment that the Government have put into mental health services. I shall merely put it on the record, as my right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with it. However, I wanted to pick up the issue of incapacity benefit, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. He was right to highlight it, because it is an important issue. Hackney, South and Shoreditch is the constituency with the second highest number of incapacity benefit claimants in London, and it has the 31st highest number nationally. In my constituency alone, 7,400 people are on incapacity benefit, 63 per cent. of whom are under 50, which clearly indicates that a significant number of people have problems that are not connected with being old and tired from work, or worn out and disabled in that way. Their mental health problems often stem from other problems such as substance abuse. We need to consider the way in which jobcentres deal with people with mental health issues. The time scales involved in requiring people to return to work and the understanding of episodic mental health problems are often severely lacking. I spoke to a user who told me that if they went along on a good day, the person at the jobcentre would say, "You're fine. Why can't you work?" Understanding is not always forthcoming, and we all need to work to highlight the issue and encourage employers in our constituencies to recognise that they can employ someone with a mental health problem, as long as they make sure that they have the right support.
	A report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on mental health and social exclusion highlighted the need for services to support people with mental health problems back into employment, and it discussed the need to provide a supportive environment with flexible schedules. In the United States, which is not always a model for good practice in mental health services, a project of individual placement and support programmes succeeded in placing more than 50 per cent. of people with severe mental health problems in employment. It was not rolled out more widely, but it compares favourably with the UK, where only 21 per cent. of people with mental health problems are in employment. That is a shocking figure, and we should all think about it—how can we raise the profile of the problem and tackle it? In my constituency we have Routes 2 Employment, which is a project—the first of its kind in the UK—to help people with mental health problems back into work. It works with employers to ensure that they know how to support such people.
	While we are looking, rightly, at putting more into community services, we must not take our eye off the ball of the important and sometimes necessary provision in a psychiatric ward. For some patients, that is the best option. I look forward to community treatment orders, which, interestingly, have received widespread support among professionals and users in my constituency, but we must be careful not to view them as an alternative to proper hospital provision. Psychiatrists should not have to release people before they are ready, because that only exacerbates the problems that they can face in the future.
	I cannot finish without highlighting the fact that although my local primary trust, City and Hackney Teaching PCT, and my local trust, Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust, have each balanced their budgets in every year since their inception, save for a small deficit of less than 1 per cent. for Homerton hospital in the last financial year—Hackney had its budget top-sliced because a small percentage overall of other NHS trusts did not balance their budgets. Last time I raised this on the Floor of the House, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), promised that the money would be returned to Hackney sooner than expected. I wrote to him but I still have no precise date. It may be a tough call to ask him to give me a date here and now, but I am still pursuing getting that money back for Hackney so that we can spend it on, among other things, the decent mental health services that people in my area deserve.

Geoffrey Cox: Like the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I speak from a rural perspective. Not for the first time, I am standing in this House, having just listened to a Labour Member talking about the services available in her constituency, and feeling that I inhabit a different world. The Minister has been very helpful in the past when I have had cause to raise issues relating to different health problems in my constituency. I know from that contact with her and with Ministers generally that they are invariably decent and well-intentioned people. I make no bones about conceding that I am sure that the Government intend to try to raise standards in this field, to promote its profile and to invest in it.
	However, I have to say to the Minister, with great respect, that as I listened to her speech I was struck by the enormous gulf between the tone and tenor of her remarks and the urgency of the problems that I experience in the surgeries that I conduct every week in my constituency. These are all real cases. There is the frightened child with anorexia who finds herself in a ward with adults. There is the schizophrenic 19-year-old who will not take the drugs to control his condition and is living at home with his mother, who cannot find help at the weekend as she watches him decline into despair. Does the Minister think that it is good enough to have crisis intervention between 9 o'clock and 5 o'clock at weekends? Those are the hours at weekends when the crisis team operates in Tavistock, in my constituency. Someone who rings up at 10 past 5 will not get anybody at the crisis team and will have to ring DevonDoc, the out-of-hours doctors' service. When this mother rang up DevonDoc, she was told, "Take him to A and E." The A and E department is 25 miles away. She received no support at the weekend, and as a consequence, like some kind of fatal unravelling, that young man was eventually sectioned and found himself in hospital.
	There is the anguished father whose son is drinking himself to death in front of his young children and an exhausted wife who has patiently tried through love and care to bring him round but can find no permanent and sustained assistance in my constituency or in my area. There is the autistic 30-year-old who, after school and college, has received no help, no provision and precious little understanding, and who is beginning to become depressed about the way in which he is treated, isolated in a small rural village. There are the families of autistic children, for whom every day is a battle to secure the education, speech therapy and occupational therapy that their child needs. Sometimes, there is no support even in the basic task of communicating with their children, who are insulated in a world that is impossible to penetrate. Those are the experiences of my constituents. I noted similar experiences of similar problems from the contributions of Liberal Democrat Members who represent rural areas such as mine, some just across the border in Cornwall.
	To those watching from a distance in Cornwall and in Devon, the Minister's speech will not have risen to the height of their problems and daily experiences. They simply do not have the services, or access to the services, about which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke a moment ago. They feel isolated, abandoned and alone. It is not good enough.
	My constituents have begun to take into their own hands the power to do something about their problems. I am proud to be a trustee of a charity called "Make a Difference" in Tavistock. It is trying to fill the gap in provision that the service users whom I represent experience daily. It runs a café, a support group and a social network. That provision is barely supported by the responsible trust. Those who use the services and the volunteers who support them, often in their spare time from working for the trust, have taken the initiatives. I am therefore proud to be a part of that and proud of all those who are beginning to construct the foundations of recovery by taking into their own hands the power to do something about their problems.
	However, the support for them is not there. The initiatives are the result of good will and voluntary action by people in the community who care. The Bubbly project provides a day centre for those with learning disabilities. Two desperate parents of a child with learning disabilities raised their banner in Torridge, in the part of north Devon that I represent, because day centres there have closed. Integration into community hubs and supported living initiatives have simply meant village halls, pubs and cafés. There is a groundswell of opinion that the policy is not working and is causing a large expansion of mental health problems.
	One cannot close day centres, which were centres of excellence, energy and activity, and the hub of a social network for those with learning disabilities, and simply believe that, without providing huge amounts of extra resources for the infrastructure and the communities, there will be no problems. Parents throughout the rural areas that I represent are deeply concerned about the move towards community care and support in the community—it simply does not appear to be there. Those with learning disabilities are deprived of the genuine help that they can get from day centres. The Bubbly project therefore relies on the voluntary action of those who give their time, money and effort to attempt to set up something that should be the county council's responsibility and that of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, which is the mental health trust responsible in my constituency.
	Those volunteer actions show the gulf that continues to exist for those with mental health problems in my constituency. It is not only those afflicted by psychiatric problems, but those with autism—as the Minister will understand—and those with a wide spectrum of mental health and learning disabilities whose urgent problems do not appear to be being tackled, at least in the rural area that I represent, by the Government's policies.
	I urge the Minister, in her efforts to introduce improvements, to examine specifically the genuine problems in rural areas. She mentioned rural areas almost in passing. I hope that she can pay specific attention to access to services, which constitutes a severe problem in the rural areas that I represent.

Simon Hughes: The pleas for better mental health services have come from across the House. We have just heard, quite rightly, about rural areas, and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) represents an urban area, as do I. The whole of Britain has an interest in this subject.
	Nobody knows what the exact figures are. The Library tells me that about one tenth of the world's population suffer from mental illness and about one in six of the population of Great Britain are assessed as having neurotic disorders. The best figure that anyone can come up with is that one in four of us will, during our lifetimes, have mental illness at one time or another. Like, I am sure, other hon. Members, I did not need to become an MP to realise how crucial mental health services are, because I know that from the experience of people among my extended family and friends, and of people whom I associated with at college or worked with. Indeed, we all know the stories of people suffering from mental illness, sometimes with tragic results.
	On 5 February, the Minister and I were in our places for an Adjournment debate that I initiated about mental health services in south London. On 12 January, the Secretary of State for Health had taken the decision to close the 24-hour emergency service at the Maudsley. In fact, it should have been closed by now, but its closure has been deferred. I shall return to that subject in a few moments, but I also want to link it to a few further points.
	I join others in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for giving us the opportunity to put this subject on the agenda—and there is no argument but that this subject should appear more regularly on that agenda. I join others in thanking those who work in mental health services, whether in acute services, primary care services or intervention services. Those are all in my constituency: the Chaucer day centre; Guy's hospital, which has mental health wards; and for people out in the community, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health is based there too—not to mention many academics working at King's College, which has medical and dental schools.
	Even with all that effort, there are some things that we have not sorted. I have a friend called John, whose daughter Alex is just about to take her finals at Liverpool university. She needed a cognitive behavioural therapist—a matter that I have raised in the House before—but it was impossible for her to get that service. For much of her time at university, she struggled on the edge of being able to cope. Happily, she has pulled herself through, but she had months of waiting before she could be properly treated.
	I am conscious that we are bidding for more funds, and I make a special plea again for universities and colleges to be given the services that they need, so that young people do not have to wait so long. They are often at their most vulnerable in their late teenage and early adult years—girls as well as boys, although it is apparently more common for boys. Their whole future careers may depend on securing the help that they need.
	My brother is a psychologist who works for the Government, specifically in the area of the armed services. He is part of the NHS services for the armed forces. However, we know from what happened at Deepcut and from other experiences that it is vital for the armed services and those in front-line jobs to have the proper back-up services that they need. I hope that in the bids for future funding, when we talk about defence budgets, we will include the facilities needed for all those people, whether they are serving abroad or at home, to have the necessary mental health support.
	I hope that we get work force planning right. I accept what the Minister said about there being more psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychiatric and mental health nurses, but we have not been great in nurse work force planning over the last 20 years. We have not been great at doctor work force planning in the NHS either. We need to ensure that we have the people—and we need to include alternative therapies, too. I very much hope that the answer to the question that the Minister ducked is that a bid has been put in for more money for mental health services in the comprehensive spending review.
	I want to end where I began. Last week, I attended a meeting at the Camberwell leisure centre, where the community was united in calling for a deferral of the decision to close the Maudsley's 24-hour service. That was the united view of the communities across the political parties, and across both local councils. We have the best service in Britain, in the best mental hospital in Britain, in the area that has the most psychotic illness in Britain, not least because my community in Southwark—like that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—has a very high number of African and Afro-Caribbean residents, which is one of the factors that add to the numbers.
	I want to end with a quote from an e-mail that I received after the meeting that night, from someone who had been there. No one makes the plea for the Maudsley clinic not to be closed better than he does. He sent the e-mail to my office address at 2.47 in the morning of 4 May. He said:
	"Simon,
	I don't know if you will remember me but I am the young man in the blue shirt from the Maudsley meeting. It's 2.30 in the morning and I am spinning out, and feel in crisis, and the only thing that gives me the strength to hold on and get through this is knowing that in the Maudsley ED, I am not on my own. To know that there is unconditional support, 24 hrs a day, is the strand of hope that enables me to think there is something to believe in and rely on and trust, and I am not on my own. I can't express in words how scared I will be without this service and I am not the only one. I have tried to kill myself twice before, and therefore I am at high risk of actually completing this act, and believe me this is the last thing I want. I want to be able to have a normal life, with my partner and 5 week old son, and I feel that this decision to close the emergency department has made this a less realistic target."
	I shall cut to the end of the e-mail:
	"When you have a meeting with Ms Hewitt please show her this email, and if ever she has the bottle to meet service users, I'd welcome the chance to talk to her and explain how life is at the sharp end of the stick, and not in plush offices in Whitehall.
	Yours sincerely,
	Ruben Nedas."
	Here is someone who knows the value of mental health services. I repeat the plea: please do not close one of the most important ones in Britain; the alternative is no substitute.

John Pugh: It has been a long day, especially for those of us serving on the Mental Health Bill, who have been debating mental health issues for about seven solid hours. However, this does make up slightly for the recent dearth of health debates— [ Interruption. ] I was being ironic.
	It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to sum up in this debate. It is not often that the Liberal Democrats find themselves in the position of having the last word and pontificating on other Members' speeches, declaring them to be powerful or well judged or riddled with absurdity. I shall pass up that chance, however, not simply because I cannot remember other people's constituencies, but because I want to focus on what are euphemistically called the service users of a service that no one wants to have to use, and on what this debate has shown about their plight. I am sure that hon. Members can accept that they have made powerful speeches without my having to point it out.
	Poor mental health is, in its severest form, the most terrible suffering known to man. No one can ever escape the torture in their own mind. All of us enjoy varying degrees of mental health in our life, including stress, anxiety, depression and unreasoning fear—some of us who are serving on the Mental Health Bill have gone through all those stages just today. Too many people enjoy socially disabling and serious mental conditions, and some live an endless nightmare and a living hell, and experience gnawing fear and enduring despair.
	Many hon. Members have talked in the debate about the stigma of mental health problems and the need to remove it. The reality is, however, that people who are in poor mental health cannot cope; their minds are in a mess, and people are right to query their ability to act and judge aright. The stigma is going to be properly addressed only by recognising that mental health is not something that we either have or do not have; it exists in degrees, and it varies, like physical health, over a lifetime. If today's athlete can be tomorrow's invalid, yesterday's service users can be the counsellors of the future. A recent confidential poll established that 11 per cent. of Members of this House claim to have suffered mental health problems at some time in their life. Presumably they are coping better now.
	Above all we need an understanding, and an education in mental health, for the whole nation. It was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that the media have an important part to play in that. We need to develop an appreciation of the fact that mental illness is not one illness but many, that being mentally ill is not about being dangerous but often perhaps about being too vulnerable or sensitive, that it is not the grossest form of abnormality but all too common, and that the person who claims to be in perfect mental health is possibly the most sadly deluded.
	None of this is much about money, although the debate has focused pretty solidly on that at times. Let me say something about money, however. If we were not in our fairly mad world of politics, we would all admit some plain truths. We would admit that the Government's spending on mental health has increased—we have acknowledged that, although it may not be in the motion—but also that spending as a percentage of total health spending has gone down, which is in the motion. We would admit that there have been forced cuts in mental health spending, as well as top-slicing. As a number of Members have pointed out, the budgets are easy to adjust. Service users are slow to complain when they do not receive their services, because they are slow to draw attention to their condition and how it is being dealt with.
	We would also admit, honestly, that some exciting initiatives have been financed. The Minister mentioned computerised cognitive behavioural therapy. What the Minister did not mention, however, was that funding for children's services has risen by only a paltry 4 per cent., and needs are growing by the day. Moreover, there is consensus across the Chamber that there is a problem with black and ethnic minority communities and the way in which the mental health services address their needs.
	As has been made clear in the debate, addressing mental health problems means a huge win for society as a whole. Many benefit claimants, including increasing numbers of new claimants—that is quite important—are not at work owing to stress and anxiety. Professor Layard's work, which has been mentioned frequently this evening, has been very helpful both in underlining that key finding and in suggesting remedies, and there is evidence in my constituency that the Department for Work and Pensions is acting on his comments. More provocative and difficult, however, is his suggestion that social planners should be mindful of the mental casualty rate in modern society, and should plan accordingly.
	The so-called happiness agenda is attracting the attention of commentators and politicians alike, and I expect it to feature to some extent in the general election, but it is by no means easy to see how the state can conspire to make its citizens happy. Most states that have tried have failed, or have done positive harm. The pursuit of Utopia normally leads to tears; a more modest goal might be to remove some of the more obvious obstacles to public happiness.
	If the Government increase funding, stop top-slicing, encourage people back into work, fight discrimination, increase public understanding, and fight stigma through programmes such as their laudable Salford's Health Investment For Tomorrow, or SHIFT, programme—under which £1 million a year is being spent on fighting stigma—they will have our support. They will also have our support if they concentrate on providing more good therapies, such as talking therapies, rather than the chemical cosh. However, even according to their own analysis, they should forget about payment by results.
	The Department of Health said that introducing payment by results would be "a major achievement", and that
	"we are unaware of any country that has been able to implement this type of system".
	To introduce it to an NHS system that is weighed down, if not crushed, by change seems in itself to be deeply deluded, if not downright pathological. How would payment by results make it possible to encourage doctors to take on more incorrigible cases? Why would trusts want to devote time and money to expensive talking therapies as opposed to simple drug prescription? How would it be possible to encourage the more imaginative therapies that involve families, use art and drama, and so on? I think that the Government should put payment by results on the back burner, and leave it there.
	The Minister did not talk much about our motion. Let us consider it now. Little, apart from its origin, should prevent all Members from voting for it. Do we not all recognise that there has been historic underfunding? Do we not all acknowledge the burden of mental illness on the benefits system? Is not the top-slicing of budgets a fact, and have not the Government promised that the budgets will be reinstated? Are not age-appropriate settings a problem? All that is in the motion. Did not the Select Committee on Health warn that cuts in mental health provision were dangerous? Are we not all for expanding therapy services?
	Were we not in this particular institution, which has its own eccentricities, and indeed delusions, we would all agree and go home—but the Chamber is, after all, a peculiar place. It is one of the few places where it is not considered odd to be standing up talking at length to oneself. So we must divide, but before we do so, let me break my initial resolution and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on a powerful speech. He drew attention to lack of equity of access—a charge that was not rebutted. He also drew attention to long waiting times—another charge that was not rebutted—and to genuine, although not universal, cuts. Again, that charge was not rebutted.
	In the spirit of co-operation, I congratulate the Minister on surviving the day with customary charm and cheerfulness, although also with a peculiar and understandable obsession with amendments to the Mental Health Bill. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his combative manner, and on his marshalling of facts—and on surviving the day as well. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not all vote for this very sensible motion.

Ivan Lewis: Whatever our differences might be on a range of issues, the subject of today's debate should unite Members in all parts of the House. Mental illness is the unspoken, eerie reality that touches many more families in our society than we will ever know. It can be short term or chronic, and affect young and old, affluent and poor, and black and white. It has the capacity to destroy lives—not only those of the individuals with the illness, but those of family members who frequently feel lonely and lost as the person they love changes into a stranger in their midst.
	At the beginning of the 21st century, mental illness remains a great stigma, as Members of all parties have said. It is possibly the greatest stigma. To some it is a sign of weakness, to others a source of shame. For far too many, it is a barrier to the life chances and economic activity that most of us take for granted. If we are frank, it fuels fear, sometimes based on ignorance, sometimes on prejudice and sometimes on reality.
	The closure of many psychiatric hospitals in the 1980s and '90s represented progressive policy which, sadly, was undermined by inadequate investment and support. By their actions, the then Tory Government tainted community care when, in a modern society, it should have been a beacon of individual human rights and collective civilisation and advance. As has been demonstrated in the debate on the Mental Health Bill, there has been through the ages, and there will always continue to be, a debate about the balance between the human rights of the individual and public protection, between the needs and wants of the service user and the views of family members, and between those whose focus is on the virtues of medication and others who stress the centrality of general well-being.
	Balance is important in this debate. Beyond the patient is always a person with emotions, experiences, dreams, aspirations and fears—like the rest of us. Beyond the carer, is a mother, father, husband or wife who is confused, scared, lonely, perhaps hopeful, and sometimes optimistic. Beyond the victim is someone whose life has been shattered by someone with the label "mental illness".
	True leadership in this area requires genuine objectivity and a commitment to the following: to attack the stigma that consigns mental illness to the "underground" of our society; to fight for the voice of people with mental illness and their families to be heard above the general din of ignorance, or of a high-profile case that is the exception not the rule; to ensure that in every area of life, from relationships to employment, individuals have the chance to pursue their potential, irrespective of their illness; and to protect society from those who represent a danger to themselves and others, through health and social care—plus, if necessary, secure accommodation and appropriate treatment.
	As Members have said, we as a society have a new phenomenon to cope with: the reality among many of our older population of Alzheimer's and dementia, which ask new questions of both the health service and the social care system. Those developments reflect a demographic change that political parties that seek to take responsibility and govern in this country must seriously and fundamentally address.
	On occasions such as this we must always celebrate the commitment, professionalism and dedication of front-line staff. They are too often the Cinderella of the health service and social care system. They work every day of the week, often in challenging and difficult circumstances, to enhance the quality of life of people who they know have lots of potential and talent, which historically has often been suppressed simply because of the label that mental illness brings.
	I shall now respond to hon. Members' contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) presented his usual humble and gentle self in the course of making his argument. We disagree with his claim that the proportion of overall health spend directed to mental health services has gone down under this Government. As for the record of the Government he supported, where I come from, a percentage of nowt is not very much. People remember the state in which the Conservative party left the mental health system—a Cinderella service in a grossly underfunded and neglected system—and the chaos and tragedies that ensued as a consequence of the Conservative Government's control of our national health service.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about psychological therapy pilots. In due course, we will look to expand those pilots, and we are making resources available for additional pathfinder sites this year. He and other Members rightly raised the question of child and adolescent mental health services. Early intervention to prevent deterioration in children and young people's mental health is fundamental. I was amazed, however, that not one Opposition Member mentioned the dreadful state of CAMHS in this country only a few years ago. Significant additional resources and staff have been provided, with a much greater level of multidisciplinary working to bring together psychologists, nurses and professionals of different disciplines and teams. With that investment, at the end of December, 90 per cent. of primary care trusts had achieved the proxy targets that we set to define whether significant progress had been made on CAMHS. We believe that, by the beginning of April, the vast majority will have done so.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend will recall my bringing a delegation of CAMHS professionals from Leicestershire, led by my constituent, Dr. Ingrid Davidson, to meet him just a few weeks ago. Does he remember that their concern was that they felt pushed to the periphery of PCT priorities? As a Minister, how can he encourage PCTs to focus on the CAMHS aspect of mental health in a more positive and productive way?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend did bring a delegation and with those professionals made strong representations about the centrality and importance of CAMHS to the national health service in his area. The message is clear: the progress made in CAMHS in recent years must be sustained; it must remain an NHS priority. The fact that the target has been hit in most areas is no ground for complacency. We must continue the sustained investment and focus on CAMHS. Where sufficient progress has not been made, the message to the commissioners is that they must commission improving services for children and young people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made an excellent contribution. As she rightly said, it is important that within two years no one aged 16 or younger shall be placed on an adult mental health ward. The reason that we are more hesitant about 17 and 18-year-olds is that the issues are much more complicated. It would be highly irresponsible of Government to make a commitment in Committee or the House that, for all sorts of difficult and complex reasons in the real world, they cannot be sure of fulfilling. That would be dishonest and dishonourable. It is therefore right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the issue further.
	My hon. Friend was also right to raise concerns about the disproportionate number of people from black and ethnic minority communities who use mental health services. That is a public policy challenge that every single politician in this House should seek to address. She was also right to draw attention to the innovative and exciting work taking place in her constituency on routes to employment by the Derman group and other organisations in the voluntary sector and in statutory services, which is making a real difference.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) made a thoughtful and passionate speech about the real-life stories at the sharp end of the mental health system, and talked powerfully about the "make a difference" project and its important self-help work. However, I say gently to him that we must not mix up people with learning disabilities and people with mental illness, although some people are in both groups; he was at risk of doing that. I am happy to talk to him separately about issues affecting people with learning disabilities.

Geoffrey Cox: Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis: No, I cannot. I will speak to the hon. Gentleman separately.
	The hon. Member for North South Work —[Interruption.] I meant the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). You can tell that I am not from London, Mr. Speaker, which is not something that I am prepared to apologise for here or anywhere else. The hon. Gentleman was right to make the points that he made about universities and colleges and access to services for our armed forces. As for the emergency clinic in his constituency, his local community referred that issue to the Secretary of State, who asked for it to be looked at afresh and in a sensitive way. Such decisions are made on a local basis, as I understand it, and that is exactly what is happening. We do not control these decisions from offices, plush or otherwise, in Westminster and Whitehall. The Liberal Democrats always claim to be the party of maximum devolution—until it suits them not to be.
	The World Health Organisation has stated objectively and independently that England has the best mental health services in Europe. However, we are not complacent;. We recognise that there is still a long way to go, but once again, in their motion and in this debate, the Liberal Democrats have launched an attack on the Government that not only fails to acknowledge the real progress that has been made in the past few years, but demands extra spending without any indication of where the resources would come from. So where would they come from—higher taxes, cuts to other parts of the NHS and social care budgets, or perhaps a combination of the two? The fact is there are no mystery options. That is the reality of responsible government—not the facile opportunism of "Focus" leaflets and permanent opposition.
	Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench health spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), gave the game away on their social care policy. She told a shocked Chamber how she regretted that her party had misled people in its last election manifesto by claiming to offer free personal care. Any party that can, by its own admission, so shamelessly exploit and mislead older and disabled people and their families cannot be trusted to champion the very real concerns of people with mental illness and their carers.
	The Tories have form on mental health, having put vulnerable people in bed-and-breakfast hotels. Will we ever forget the shame of those consequences of Tory mental health policies in the 1980s and 1990s? In contrast, we will continue step by step to rebuild mental health services that reflect the realities and challenges of our modern society. I urge the House tonight to reject the Liberal Democrat motion and to—

Jeremy Browne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the extra £1.65 billion spent on mental health services since 2001; supports the record number of staff working in mental health since 1997 including almost 9,400 more psychiatric nurses and over 1,300 more consultant psychiatrists; further welcomes the lowest suicide rates since records began; recognises the work of the 700 new mental health teams in the community; notes the national patient survey, which shows that 77 per cent. of community patients rate their care as good, very good or excellent; recognises that between 2001 and 2005 £1.6 billion capital was spent by mental health trusts on improvements to mental health wards; further welcomes the Government's commitment to expanding access to psychological therapies; and further welcomes the Government's Mental Health Bill, which will update the legislation to reflect advances in knowledge and new ways of treating people, particularly in the community.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Limiting Global Climate Change

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5422/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius—the way ahead for 2020 and beyond; endorses the Government's support for the ambitious reduction targets that the EU has put forward; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that European policy on climate change continues to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to galvanise the international community to work towards a global and comprehensive post 2012 agreement. — [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Cattle Identification Regulations

Ordered,
	That the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 529), dated 19(th) February 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— [Liz Blackman.]

DOG FIGHTING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Liz Blackman.]

Greg Hands: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? There is an Adjournment debate.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak about a matter that, in recent years, has been of mounting concern in my constituency and across the UK: organised and impromptu dog fighting. I first became aware of the problem of dog fighting a few years ago during a chance encounter with Val Barker, who is the chairwoman of the Clem Attlee, Maton and Rocque tenants and residents association in my constituency. The Clem Attlee estate is one of the largest estates in Hammersmith and Fulham. Val told me of the growing problem of youths breeding dogs for fighting and then sometimes gambling on the outcome of the contest. My initial reaction was that it was a totally mediaeval practice and must surely be a one-off, but I soon started to hear reports of dog fights from other estates and even leafy streets in south Fulham.
	Val Barker tells me that the problem has worsened since she first mentioned it to me. On the Clem Attlee estate, many teenagers are hanging around with—most often—Staffordshire bull terriers. They are often to be seen around the enclosed football pitch. Some dogs are held inside the pitch area and others are held outside. They are encouraged to be aggressive towards each other through the fence. Sometimes full scale fights break out later, which often put an important facility such as an estate football pitch out of action.
	I have to confess that I am not the greatest expert on dogs. I have never owned one and I have never had much contact with them. I am not fanatical about animal rights, but I do believe that needless cruelty to animals needs to be stamped out. Over the past 10 years, I have taken a big interest in everything that happens in Hammersmith and Fulham, including—if not especially—on the big estates. The combination of antisocial behaviour, gambling and animal cruelty is probably unique, in our times at least. My views on gambling have become increasingly negative over the years: I know that it is a major cause of family breakdown and indebtedness, especially, but not entirely, among working-class households.
	Another good source of local information on the dog phenomenon is Gaye Rose from the Hammersmith and Fulham Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations, which is the umbrella group for social housing tenant groups within the borough. She agrees with me that dog fighting is a problem right across the borough. There is a group of young men who live on Coningham road—not far from where the Minister lives—who train their dogs on the grounds of the White City estate. On the William Church estate, the same problem exhibited itself until effective action was taken by the council's street wardens and the local police. There has been a terrible problem at De Palma Court, near Fulham Broadway, with two pit bull terriers being exercised in the grounds. It is a small, quiet block of about 16 flats—if memory serves correctly—with generally elderly tenants. At a recent tenants' meeting, residents were so concerned that they presented local housing officers with photos of the phenomenon.
	I am told that a whole family on Adam walk, a new development in Fulham, is training Staffordshire bull terriers to fight against both dogs and people. It seems that there are outbreaks of such behaviour throughout the borough, but one estate is mentioned more than any other as being perhaps the epicentre of dog fighting in Hammersmith and Fulham: the Flora Gardens estate, where it seems that many of those dogs are kept and trained. Although this is not unique to Hammersmith and Fulham, the police will generally confiscate weapons, but they steer clear of dogs. However, these dogs are a form of weapon. The police generally get a good write up from tenants on the Clem Attlee estate for their work on fighting drugs, but no one has seen much action against dangerous dogs, at least as yet.
	Councillor Greg Smith, the council's cabinet member for crime and antisocial behaviour, has briefed me about some of the less obvious problems caused by dogs being trained to fight. Much of the training takes place on parkland with trees. The dogs have their jaws strengthened through the practice of leaving them to hang by their mouths from the branches of trees. The practice is cruel to the dogs and also gravely damages the trees. It is a particular problem in the north of the borough on Wormwood Scrubs, where many trees have been destroyed. Ravenscourt and Marcus Garvey parks are also favoured haunts for the trainers of those fighting dogs.
	More dangerously, dogs are sometimes trained to hang from the horizontal bar of children's swings in the borough's play areas. I am not an expert on the safety of play equipment, but swings are certainly not designed to be submitted to such treatment. Children's safety might be at risk, while actual and psychological harm is being done to the dogs.
	The council recently introduced a full set of dog control orders. They came in only six weeks ago, so council staff are still being trained to enforce them. I do not have time to describe all the orders, but dogs must now be on a lead at all times in the borough's cemeteries, all its wildlife conservation areas and various parts of its parks.
	Councillor Smith tells me that many dogs have been killed through fighting in the borough in recent years, although no one knows quite how many. Last year, a woman walking on Wormwood Scrubs lost a chunk of her ear thanks to one of those dogs and more serious incidents might arise in the future. Additionally, there is a big problem with intimidation. Many walkers and the owners of other dogs are simply afraid to go near any of the more well-known locations for dog fighting. The new council in Hammersmith and Fulham is following a tough approach on antisocial behaviour, although some in the local Labour party say that it is too macho. I know that the council will take a zero-tolerance approach on dog fighting.
	I have become increasingly concerned about dogs that are kept as status symbols or fashion accessories. Anyone on the streets of Hammersmith and Fulham can see the phenomenon. The phrase most often used by residents who contact me about the problem is "blinged-up Staffs". Given the nature of the hours of the House, I often emerge from Fulham Broadway tube station at about 11 pm, or roughly chucking out time. That is often a hazardous time on the broadway because one needs to get past hordes of tipsy or drunken people spilling out of the concentration of pubs there. However, a few months ago, I was surprised to see a new hazard in the late-night scene on Fulham broadway. Two male teenagers were walking their dogs in the dark. The dogs were Staffs and they were blinged up, as it happens. The teenagers were not walking the dogs in the sense that hon. Members would understand, but strutting around with them and looking proud as peacocks with their new and terrible fashion accessories.
	In many other cases, the dogs are kept not as fashion accessories, but to intimidate other people, for impromptu dog fights on estates or in parks, or even to guard stashes of illegal substances. Such animals will typically become guard dogs for drugs that are concealed in homes and cars. Thankfully, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is aware of those phenomena. It says that
	"these dogs are traditionally—but not exclusively—associated with young people on inner city estates and those involved in criminal activity".
	It tells me that the problem exists in all our large cities, but especially in London. The problem is associated with not just white working-class males—the RSPCA tells me that youths of Pakistani origin breed so-called bully cutters for fighting. Those huge dogs are apparently bred and trained for fighting and can be extremely aggressive.
	The RSPCA worries especially about the use of dogs as status symbols and participants in impromptu, but none the less illegal, dog fights. It tells me that the phenomenon is growing rapidly throughout the UK. Sometimes the fights are recorded with mobile phone cameras, like the canine equivalent of happy slapping. The RSPCA particularly urges action against the breeding factories, which are most typically located in lock-up garages, warehouses and disused buildings. Smaller versions appear in individual flats on estates or streets across Britain.
	Turning to the legislative environment, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had a number of important provisions on dog fighting that I welcome. It is now an offence for anyone to arrange an animal fight, to knowingly participate in making or carrying out arrangements for an animal fight, to make or accept a bet on the outcome of an animal fight, to take part in an animal fight, to knowingly receive money for admission to an animal fight, to keep or train an animal for use in connection with an animal fight, to keep any premises for use in an animal fight, or to knowingly supply, publish or show a video recording of an animal fight. That list sounds extremely comprehensive, but the key, as ever, is in the enforcement. There are one or two other matters that require legislation, but generally most of the attention should focus on enforcement in future.
	One of the weaknesses of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was its focus on breeds rather than behaviour. According to people who know far more about dog breeds than I do, these days, there are very few pure-breed pit bull terriers, but there is a huge and increasing number of cross-bred pit bulls. Pit bulls are bred with Irish bull terriers and other breeds, mainly so that people can get round the law prohibiting pit bulls. I agree with the RSPCA that the legislation needs changing to create more control over the behaviour of dogs and how they are trained. Responsibility should be placed on the owner, and there are strong arguments for specific offences of encouraging a dog to show aggressive and intimidating behaviour.
	In the past 10 years, there has been a huge decline in the number of prosecutions under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, which relates to having a dog that is dangerous and not kept under control, and under section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which relates to being in possession of a prohibited dog without an exemption. For example, in 1992, there were 209 prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but that declined to just one in 2003, before rising to a mere 11 in 2005. As I mentioned, there were new offences relating to fighting in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but the new offences do not capture the breeding of dogs for fighting. RSPCA officers have raided what could be called breeding factories, where different types of dog commonly used for fighting are being cross-bred to produce stronger and more aggressive animals.
	The RSPCA has 80 dogs in kennels in connection with dog fighting offences, and it is rare for cases to come to court less than a year after the intervention. It costs the RSPCA about £300 a month to maintain a dog in kennels while it waits for the case to come to court, and that is before any veterinary fees are taken into consideration. Taking action is expensive for the RSPCA, which is often left to pick up the bill while trials are awaited. Clause 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not make it a criminal offence to breed dogs for the sole purpose of fighting, and that means that unscrupulous breeders cannot generally be prosecuted, and that needs to change.
	The provisions in the Dogs Act 1871 that make it an offence to possess a dog that is dangerous and out of control cover both private and public places. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies to public places only. I am not often in favour of the police, or local authority or RSPCA inspectors, having new rights of access to private homes or other private places, but there is an argument for providing such rights in the case of those suspected of training dogs for fighting.
	To conclude, I will set out the legislative changes that may be needed. First, we should make breeding dogs for fighting a criminal offence. Secondly, we should provide inspection rights in relation to properties in which it is suspected that dogs are bred and/or trained for fighting. Thirdly, offences should be behaviour-specific, rather than breed-specific. Fourthly, offences should include an element of aggravation if the owner intentionally caused the dog to be aggressive, for example through its training. The latter might be difficult to prove, but punishments should be severe for those who breed and/or train dangerous dogs to fight each other, or even worse, to attack humans. The enforcement of existing laws is more important than creating new laws. The number of prosecutions has fallen dramatically in the past 10 years, and I look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do to combat this terrible and dangerous scourge.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) for raising the issue of organised dog fighting. It is a barbaric activity, which has no place in a civilised society. Parliament first passed laws to stop it in 1835, and it is a sad reflection that nearly 200 years later we are still debating the same problem.
	In many cases, dog fighting is associated with other crime. Organised fights can be highly organised. People may travel hundreds of miles to attend, and large sums of money are placed as bets on the outcome. Fighting dogs may change hands for £1,000 to £2,000. Recordings of fights are often made, and may be supplied to people who either take perverted pleasure in watching animals suffer or are in the business of buying and selling fighting dogs and need evidence of their "gameness" to keep their price high. There are worries, too, that pet dogs are being stolen to be used in the training of fighting dogs, and I should like to thank the Dogs Trust and others for raising public awareness of the issue.
	Robust laws are in place to deal with any form of theft, but the loss of a dog always causes immense heartache. I urge dog owners to be vigilant and to make sure that their pets are kept in secure areas as far as possible. I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the work done by the police and the RSPCA in investigating and prosecuting offences related to fighting. I recognise, too, that a lot of effort, particularly with regard to intelligence gathering, has to be put in to bring the culprits to justice. Recently, the issue of dogs being bred for fighting has been given media attention following the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson on 1 January after being attacked by a pit bull-type dog in Merseyside. As hon. Members know, dog fights normally involve pit bulls, and the keeping of such dogs is banned under the Dangerous Dogs Acts. The action taken by the police in the wake of Ellie's death to combat the keeping of pit bull-type dogs, which included an amnesty that resulted in 107 dogs being seized, has confirmed that a significant number of those dogs are still held illegally. They are kept for a variety of purposes—not just fighting—and I would not want to draw any rushed conclusions as to whether the problems that have occurred in Merseyside indicate that dog fights are about to become as commonplace as they were in the 1980s before the Dangerous Dogs Acts came into force.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted a number of his constituents' concerns about problems in his area. I have not had the chance to reflect on them, but my initial response is that many of the problems that he outlined sound illegal. They would, in my view, be illegal. If they have not been reported, they should be reported both to the police and the RSPCA. He said that in many cases the police, the RSPCA and his local street wardens had already taken effective action in Hammersmith and Fulham to help to tackle the problem. He said that pit bull terriers were exercised in communal gardens and spaces. The mere possession of such dogs is illegal, so if that phenomenon has not been reported to the police already, I suggest that it should be. If he has not already done so, he may wish to seek a meeting with his local police or, indeed, the Metropolitan police, to press his view that dog fighting and the keeping of illegal dogs should be taken more seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned that dog control orders had been, or were in the process of being, introduced by his local authority, which I very much welcome. Those are new measures that the Government introduced to help local authorities clamp down on problem dogs and problem dog owners in a particular area without having to go through too many bureaucratic hoops and loops. He mentioned the problem of blinged- up Staffs outside Fulham Broadway—I think that that is how he described it—being walked after dark as status symbols. One has to be careful—and he alluded to that later in his speech—not to blame the dogs themselves. Staffs are a perfectly legal breed, and many people tell me—like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a dog owner—that they can make extremely lovely, loyal and well-behaved pets. In the wrong hands, however, they can be intimidating and unpleasant for bystanders. The fact that they are dressed up may be a fashion statement but it does not, in itself, cause offence. Obviously, if the dog then causes problems or the owners behave aggressively, that may contravene the laws to which I have referred. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there has been a decrease in the number of prosecutions brought for pit bull ownership under the dangerous dogs legislation, but I would expect that to happen after the Acts were passed. In the immediate aftermath, more prosecutions would be brought in relation to pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs than in relation to other species.

Greg Hands: The Minister is right, but that does not explain the decline in prosecutions under the Dogs Act 1871, which has obviously been in place for more than 130 years.

Ben Bradshaw: I will address that issue, because I think that I may have misunderstood one of the hon. Gentleman's points and should correct the record. Under some elements of the 1871 Act, there has been an increase in prosecutions over the past 10 years or so. In 1992, for example, there were 310 prosecutions under the section that makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, injuring a person. There were 645 prosecutions in 2005, the last year for which figures are available. Similarly, as regards prosecutions of a person in charge allowing a dog to enter a non-public place and injure a person, there were 20 prosecutions in 1992 and 44 in 2005.
	Prosecutions for breeding have indeed declined since 1992, but that is comparable with prosecutions for possessing an illegal breed. One would expect prosecutions to decline as the clampdown kicks in and fewer illegal breeds are bred or owned. That is reflected in the fact that the number of prosecutions for possession of an illegal breed has fallen from 209 in 1992 to 11 in 2005. However, the overall number of prosecutions under the 1871 Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are still significant at 1,335 for 2005, the last year for which figures are available.
	I hope that the attention that the hon. Gentleman has brought to this issue, and that several recent tragic cases have brought to it, will result in a new vigour by the police and enforcement authorities in taking this issue very seriously. However, I recognise that there are problems with enforcement, particularly when it comes to recognising pit bull-type dogs. In some areas, that may lead the police to give it a low priority.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a complete review of the 1991 Act in light of the recent attacks. That was spurred initially by my concern that under the law in this country, in contrast to that in most other countries, the convictions and punishments available to the authorities for attacks that take place on private property are far less serious than those for attacks that take place on public property. When a human being is injured or killed, as some have been in certain circumstances, many people fail to understand why the matter should be treated much less seriously if it takes place on somebody's private property than it would on public property. I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the ongoing proceedings in respect of the Liverpool case are for manslaughter, so clearly the Crown Prosecution Service and the police believe that there are existing powers to prosecute for serious offences when an attack takes place on private property.
	We have written round to all the police forces, including the Metropolitan police, and to the Association of Chief Police Officers, asking for their views on the operation of the 1991 Act. I urge the hon. Gentleman, and any hon. Member who has an interest in this area, to feed into that review. We have also asked formally for the views of animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust. For some time, the RSPCA and, in particular, the Dogs Trust have been campaigning against the breed-specific bans contained in the 1991 Act passed by the previous Administration in the belief—I have some sympathy with this—that the deed, not the breed, is the real issue at stake.
	I have to tell the House that it would be hugely controversial with the public, who have memories of those terrible cases in the 1980s that involved breeds that were far more terrifying, big and specifically bred for fighting than, for example, a Staffordshire bull terrier, to allow those breeds again. Indeed, most other European countries have followed the UK in introducing some sort of restriction on them. However, that does not mean that I do not fully accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need to consider more carefully the behaviour that is associated with the sort of dog fighting that he describes in his constituency. It sounds as if it happens on a more ad hoc, less formal basis, although some of the more serious organised criminal gangs and syndicates are involved. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is a commoner's Act and it is therefore possible for any Member of Parliament, organisation or institution to take out a prosecution under it. I hope that the police and the courts use the new powers, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure that the public are aware of how seriously we take the issue.
	The penalties that are now available to the courts as a result of the 2006 Act have been increased. The maximum fine has increased from £5,000 to £20,000. The Act also provides for offenders to be jailed for up to 12 months. I hope that the courts will take seriously the offences that the hon. Gentleman described. As he also said, the Act contains improvements, which include repealing the vague and confused rules that enabled culprits to escape justice in the past. The law now clearly defines all the activities associated with dog fighting. They are not confined to people who actively manage the fighting ring or spectators at the fight, but also cover those who may not necessarily be present but are involved in promoting it. The RSPCA and others welcomed such changes to the law.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I deplore the current macho youth culture of keeping dangerous dogs as a status symbol. It is worrying, and clearly the law is being broken if the dog is of a banned breed. As part of our review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we want to examine whether there should be more training for police in recognising breeds. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that can be difficult in some circumstances. More publicity is required for the public, a new generation of whom have grown up long since the introduction of that Act almost 20 years ago. They may not even be aware that what they are doing is illegal.
	It is also illegal to keep a dog in a way that is incompatible with its welfare. I believe that that would cover some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. People who committed such an offence would fall foul of the cruelty provisions of the 2006 Act. Hanging dogs from trees to strengthen their jaws is in that category. It is also illegal to have aggressive dogs that cause harm to the public. It is important to convey the message from the House that those who break the law could be heavily fined and, in the worst cases, sent to prison.
	I remind hon. Members that dog fighting, like any other criminal activity, can be effectively tackled only if members of the public are willing to come forward and tell the police when they suspect that a fight is being arranged or has taken place. I urge members of the public who are worried about dog fighting in their local area to do that. However good one's laws, they can work only if we work together to end this abhorrent activity.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.